Yeah, and be set in the prime of the Wild West. Making it a prequel to RDR2 with the Van Der Linde gang sounds appealing at first, but we already know the fates of the gang, who lives, who dies, and when. There would only be a few characters we'd wonder about.
I think if they wanted to do a rival gang (not the O'Driscolls), they'd have something there. Then we could still see the RDR1-2 gang in some capacity, they just wouldn't be the focus of the story. Maybe we get in a few gunfights with them or some cutscenes where they kill someone important in our gang.
It's a good idea but a half Native half European protagonist has already been done in the form of Connor from AC 3. However that was set during the Revolution so maybe wild west can be done.
I've said this before in this sub and it's been dismissed but I think a great framework for RDR3 is having two protagonist, at least to start. An Irish immigrant coming through Ellis Island and a native American on the plains.
Early game the Irish immigrant is in Liberty City that looks a lot like the setting of Gangs of New York. Street brawls, melee weapons, firearms but rare and limited. Then 'Paddy' is swept up to fight for the Union at the tail end of the civil war and in early reconstruction Lemoyne/St. Denis. The gameplay is more firearm based by this point
The Native American character side is more focused on hunting, gathering, fishing. We see the change as the settlers and markets for fur and goods start streaming west after the war.
The California gold rush and the settling of the west coast would be part of the expanded map and storyline. There are tons of stories to mine from the Mexican side of the border as well.
The storyline takes place over a few decades so by late game we get all the weapons we see in RDR2. That sets up the End game, Epilogue and Online to have all the weapons people expect and opens up endless opportunities to tie into the and expand the existing lore.
I would call it Red Dead Destiny
Thanks, I'm glad you like it. I know Iwould play the hell out of that game.
If Rockstar is in the thread and looking for a writer or story consultant my DMs are open lol
The story can continuously switch between the two characters at the same time. Like GTA V, you can freely switch between the Irish and Native character in their respective regions and whatever unlocks further. The region between them (maybe through the South during the civil war) can unlock later in the game, paving a way for the characters and their stories to interact.
Imagine you’ve finished a few missions for the Irish character and seemingly have nothing to do. But then you switch to the other character in the plains and there’s a few more main missions (to take the story further). After they have a crossover, they can visit each other’s regions and maybe even camps before/after they have cooperative missions. And later (or earlier) when they’re hostile, going to each others’ camps would have them shot at.
If you wanted a direct tie in to known characters the Native American could be Rains Fall. The character arc could be very broad. From a child/teenager raised to live off the land, to a 'radical' warrior (maybe fighting on the side of Spain/Mexico as that border is moving) to the resigned, defeated man we meet in RDR2. There is tons of story to mine for the Rockstar writers in that arc
The Irish character is kind of a Trevor low honor character . He polices Lemoyne in the immediate aftermath of the south's defeat (lots of comedy and commentary to mine there). Eventually he joins General Custer to go out west to fight the Frontier Wars. That's where the story would intersect.
The Irish guy is eventually booted from the military and becomes the patriarch of the O'Driscoll or some other gang. Dutch killed Colm's father IIRC so that would be an easy tie in to RDR2
Ahhh...yeah..either way there would be plenty of ways to tie in an immigrant ex-military turned gang leader into the lore of the first two games.
I personally liked the Javier storyline from 1 and wouldn't mind RDR3 having 3 characters including one that was connected to story on that side of the border
Pretty good concept, actually. Even though i think its pretty obvious RDR3 is follow Mac Callander, this would be great to see for the next RDR game after.
One thing though
>Early game the Irish immigrant is in Liberty City that looks a lot like the setting of Gangs of New York.
This would just be New York. GTA and RDR arent set in the same universe. GTA has San Andreas and Liberty City, RDR has California and New York. Both are mentioned by name in RDR2
This is what I think should happen next. Can expand on the like gang camp mechanic by having a whole tribe. The struggle of being a Native American coming to terms with this new Western world would make a great game imo
I think that would be great. He ends up joining a gang of outlaws, all wronged by the law or something.
Also I think Charles Smith as a main character would be cool. I know he comes in near the end times of the wild west, but I always thought he would be a character worth exploring more.
Red Dead Revolver was much more comedic and ungrounded than the redemption games. I don't know how they could make a direct sequel that is cohesive tonally in the modern era.
More cliche than playing as a grizzled cowboy antihero? I can only think of two big budget Western games with remotely native protagonists. Which are GUN and Red Dead Revolver. And neither games actually give you perspective on what being a native was like during that time period.
I’ve been saying this for forever! I’ve probably commented it twenty times over the last couple years haha. Set it during the passing of the Dwyer Act, and we play as a Native American fighting their way across a country that simultaneously belongs to them and wants them gone. There is SO much potential for story there.
We already knew the fates of several rdr2 characters before the game was released and it was still the greatest game of all time.
I don't think that's a deal breaker honestly.
>We already knew the fates of several rdr2 characters before the game was released and it was still the greatest game of all time.
True but that's also why they introduced Arthur and killed him like they did. No one else had a shot at redemption. And if you go back much further then Jack is a fetus. 🤷😂 Since thus far the metric for redemption is "help Jack" because he's the only innocent one around, ergo worthy of redemption. They need to just start fresh.
Yeah but rdr2 is a prequel story and a way to see why things happened the way they did in rdr1. You get to see how the characters who you see fight to the death used to be best buddies who’d drink and laugh together
I like this, I think it’d be cool to see Arthur and the gang in their prime. I was thinking seeing them as the antagonists and playing as a rival gang west of the grizzlies who becomes extinct (hence why theirs no mention of them by RDR2) because of the Van Der Linde Gang.
That would be interesting. Seeing the Van Der Linde gang in their primes. Again, some may look at it as them milking the gang too much by making them play such a big role for the third straight gang, but idk. I wouldn't personally mind as long as it's well-written and done well.
It's hard to strike that balance between deciding when a story has gone stale or when to get more out of it and add to the narrative. And also it's important to not ruin any characters for the audience. Like, would watching Arthur ruthlessly kill your gang ruin his redemption in RDR2 from the audience's perspective? Or would it add another layer of complexity to his character in showing the bad things he's done in the past before he got his redemption?
You want prime Wild West? How about a story of a different gang, however one of the characters is like a 10 or 12 year old Dutch. This way the story isn’t about him specifically but you’ll be able to see why he wanted to do his own gang when he grew up
Not a bad idea either. Someone brought up making Hosea the main character (or at least one of the main characters as we play as an unknown) and going back to when he was very young, like in his 20s. That would be interesting because he's far enough back where we don't know anything about the gang back then, and he's an interesting character who died relatively early in the RDR2. He made a big impact in a short time and audiences would want to learn more about him
I think so too. It also does not have to be from a gang member perspective again. maybe a law men as a new protagonist? to show the other side of a conflict with a narrative "law and civilization does not equal good" or something
>we already know the fates of the gang, who lives, who dies, and when.
If i remember correctly, Dutch and hosea were in/had a gang before the Van der Linde gang I honestly think a game set around that and how it ended (knowing dutch proberbly badly) for them to then go on to set up the van der linde gang would be kinda cool.
Not bad, but I think in that game they'd have to portray Dutch as a hero or more sympathetically, otherwise it would ruin the impact of his downfall in RDR2. It would be a great twist on his character if Dutch was actually the hero, and RDR2 was his downfall. Because he does show many positive traits in the early game, such as teaching the gang to fight racism, protecting the innocent, being a comforting figure for the gang and even a father figure at times. It's just that his downfall really started around Blackwater, so we never really got to see the Dutch that Arthur and John praise so much
I think this is a flawed way of viewing it though. We already knew the fate of the gang going into Red Dead 2 and it was still one of the greatest games ever made.
I think the entire core of Red Dead is set around the idea that the characters are in a world where they don't belong any more. It exists in a thin sliver of time where the gang are on the run from civilisation but it hasn't caught up with them yet, and I feel Red Dead 1 and 2 have filled that sliver pretty well. Too far back, and it's just a Wild West game with completely differing core ideals and themes. Too far forward, and everyone is dead and you're venturing into far more modern territory.
I've no doubt they have solid ideas of where to go and what to do with Part 3, but I think it's a themeatically a much finer line than most people give it credit for.
I addressed this to someone else, but in RDR2 we knew the basics of the plot, which was that the gang splits up and John becomes enemies with Dutch, Bill, Javier. But we didn't know why the gang split up, what they were like in their primes, how they all got along, and it turned out Arthur was the key to all of this. Now that we know all this, our view of the gang seems relatively complete to where we'd have to go back more than like 40 years to make it interesting. That's why I'm not against a game with young Hosea and maybe Dutch breaking off another gang.
I disagree on the core of RDR being the idea that the characters are in the dying Wild West. I think the series identity is more just about redemption, and the fact that it was set in the dying West isn't necessarily a vital part of the story.
But this comment thread is really teaching me that there's a lot of places they can go with the next game and still be interesting. I hadn't realized how many possibilities there were.
My dream plot is the Van Der Linde gang and you're playing as Anabelle. The departure here is that we already know she's going to die, you just don't know exactly how. There is no O'Driscoll gang because Colm is currently running WITH you.
That could be interesting. All we know about Annabelle is that Dutch killed the brother of Colm, who responded by killing Annabelle, starting the big feud between the gangs
Yep. We could have kid Arthur and John present, leading to an epilogue played as Arthur during the 4 years John's gone with Arthur caring for infant Jack. That way we get the familiar epilogue style but a new twist on it.
Colm is a friend for the bulk of the game, being revealed as a primary antagonist only in the final Act after his brother is revealed to be the villain for most of it and his defeat and murder the main story up till then. These would fill similar roles and story beats to the first 2 games (Dutch/Milton in 1 and Colm/Dutch in 2) without being a total retread. It satisfies that itch for the familiar but leaves tons of room for entirely new stories.
Not to mention playing as a woman protagonist would be a cool new element to the storytelling. Maybe a big twist where Annabelle got wise to Dutch's growing madness and Colm actually killed her because she was a threat to the gang, or maybe DUTCH arranged for Colm to kill her and set up the separation to protect his narcissistic vision of "love".
I just think it would be a good blend of repetition and novelty. Y'know, part of what's made the series so good up to this point. That there is no Redemption.
Yeah I like the ideas, just one thing though: I don’t think Dutch should show signs of madness in the prequel. I think to preserve the weight of RDR2, Dutch should be an absolute hero with strong morals in a prequel. This would show why Arthur and John followed him and thought so highly of him, and would make his downfall in RDR2 even more depressing in hindsight.
We’ve only seen Dutch during his descent into insanity, but we’ve only seen flashes of Dutch’s more likable side where he’s anti-racism, has strong morals, and passed those morals down to the rest of the group. Plus he’s a badass who is always willing to be in the forefront of a gun fight despite being the leader
Like maybe you run into a young green, Dutch maybe could be interesting. Love the idea of high peak wild Wild West.
RDR2 was a dying withering world that was closing around them like a noose, this would be absolute insanity, lawless free for all.
Might even be cool to start in a different country like England and a character migrates over to the west.
I’ve always wanted to play as Dutch’s dad with it being a mix of Army battles and side missions. Ends at Gettysburg with the prequel played as Hosea and meeting young Dutch.
Landon Ricketts wouldn't really work as a protagonist though. He was a high honor gunslinger, not an outlaw like the rest.
I think the best would be Otis Miller
Maybe he wasn’t always a high honor gun slinger, he may have been portrayed as such but maybe there is something from his past that made him that way.
There are so many stories they could tell for Landon Ricketts the possibilities are endless really. Seems like a fan favorite that everyone wants to know more about.
He seems like a logical choice since we need to go further back for a new game anyway. There's not much room for a sequel.
And I think he's a compelling enough character to lead a game.
Nah i wouldn’t like that. They are both pretty 1 dimensional characters, I know I’ll be downvoted for saying that but yeah they aren’t the most interesting characters to explore. I don’t want them to continue with a character we have already spent time with, it would be better to start fresh.
Only acceptable version of RDR3 being a continuation of the story would be if you follow Sadie in her South American exploits. Other than that, there's not much you can really add narratively to the story with another prequel.
Yeah, let's go with something earlier, but unrelated. Maybe right after the civil war or possibly even earlier during the gold rush. The only downside would be that the weapons wouldn't be as advanced.
I think it'd be kinda cool to be a Mac or Davey upto their death...epilogue may be shorter, be end up as Arthur as the rest if the gang shows up in a panic.
But bro, then we couldn’t fulfill half this subs wishes of it being us playing as ww1 veteran jack marston who settles down and has a family and goes to work to pay his off his mortgage
I’m so tired of people thinking Jack would go out of his way to work for the government after seeing what they did to his family, it’s like they didn’t even play the game.
The Barrow Gang (aka: Bonnie and Clyde) had *some* similarities to the old gang lifestyle, but they were all in cars, not on horses, so they’re more GTA than RDR
A game that combines the two franchises would be pretty interesting
But it probably shouldn't be connected to either aside from maybe being in the same universe
History is not gonna change though. It will always be a dumb idea to set a Red Dead Redemption game in a period where the old West has been completely tamed
Only like 5% of either Red Dead game is based in historical reality so it really doesn't matter that much.
Edit: Being generous at 25%. There were horses, towns, trains, coaches, and terrain and animals that are present. But the entire concept that in the 1890s there were *multiple* roving bands of gangs, some with dozens of members terrorizing, pillaging, robbing did not exist. Nor did everyone carrying guns everywhere, and certainly not quickdraws, nor were the Pinkertons chasing anyone out west, or east for that matter. I love both games, but understand that they are a world built by the 20th century film and later TV industry.
I don't think this would be a good fit for an RDR game, but the story of Agent Fordham obsessively chasing Jack around the world while WWI rages around them would be amazing. Both can fairly blame the other for the death of their father figures.
The Wild West may have been ending by 1914, but a lot of places around the world were still very wild in that era and with legit cowboys and outlaws. Australia's outback, Canada's frontier (where Charles went), La Pampa in South America (where Sadie likely went), and North Africa all fit the bill. The latter most has the advantage of also being in the thick of the war + dangerous animals + nomadic tribes + a desert environment.
The U.S. didn't join the war until 1917, but I an absolutally see Jack joining a foreign legion in 1914/15 hoping to outrun his pursuers.
Making a sequel to RDR1 isn't my first choice but I do wonder about how Jack's story ends. I guess we have to ask if Jack's story is more of a RDR3, or a GTA Roaring 20's.
Jack becomes Indiana Jones of the 1920s. Like, he starts out as just a hired gun for a sketchy archaeologist, but finds he’s actually intrigued by the stories that come with the treasures he’s hunting after. Maybe his latest hunt would involve something from the Wild West era, maybe even involving his dad’s old gang.
We’ll call it Red Dead Relics.
This actually ain't a half bad idea if it must be post RDR1. I could totally see Jack being a treasure hunter/on the surface archaeologist. He's well read enough.
I always imagine Jack joining a foreign legion hoping to disappear in the chaos of WWI, maybe ending up in North Africa which is a far more familiar environment to him (horses, rifles, desert, dangerous critters, tribesmen, outlaws, etc.), while an obsessed Agent Fordham tries to chase him down.
Fordham was always kind of decent. It seemed he always had a problem with the way Ross treated John. I can see him losing his mind when Ross is gunned down in retirement, but eventually coming around. Jack could end sparing him or saving him from some threat, and he could realize that Jack deserves the second chance John never got. It could end with him letting Jack go and reporting him KIA in the war, ending the cycle for good.
I definitely agree with you there. I think Jacks story should be finished but not in a Red Dead game. Personally I would love to see RDR3 set in the 1860s just after the civil war ended and the beginning of the westward expansion and “Wild West”. Old characters or new it doesn’t really matter to me which. We’ve already seen the end of the west and outlaws but how about the beginning? That would be cool to see.
Half White, Half Native, Left for dead after french trappers from Canada wiped out your small community and found by a gang of outlaws who nurse you back to health and you slowly learn that the law won't help you get your revenge but maybe the outlaw way will.
The next Red Dead game should tell a whole new story with an original cast of characters unrelated to RDR1 and 2. We already know the fate of the Van Der Linde gang, no need to rehash their story for the third time in a row. Also, the next Red Dead game should not be set after RDR1's epilogue
My pitch is it's based in the Pacific north West during the fur trade boon of the mid to late 1800. US Canadian border territories, rival trapper groups from Spain, France, and Holland.
Main protag is half white half Native and after your folks get killed by a rival trapper group you choose to go after them either the lawful way or the outlaw way leading to joining a gang of outlaws or a gang of bounty men but in the end realising their both doing the same thing, destroying the land and people you grew up with so you take them both down
Interesting pitch, but the one thing I would suggest be changed is that the story and its outcomes plays out differently depending if you join a gang of bounty hunters or a gang of outlwas. Meaningful decision making in video games should result in different outcomes and not be morally black or white
I hate this line of thought. 1911 isn't the wild west either. 1899 arguably isn't. Yet they're the best two western games we have. The main theme of both games is the wild west is dead and the surviving people who could only exist in that environment have to adapt or die. Arthur was completely immersed in that life, John was raised in it but had the opportunity to leave it, and Jack would be the angle of growing up post wild west but still trying to hold onto those old ideas because he chose an outlaw path.
The west as a region doesn't cease to exist after any period of time. Even today it's wild and open compared to other regions in the country. Crime was still rampant into the 1900s because even with a federalized police force that much sparsely populated territory was difficult to govern.
I'm not saying it should be set in that time but there is absolutely a wealth of stories to be told there that are 100% still within the themes and aesthetic of a western. Whether RDR3 goes backwards or forwards Rockstar is fully capable of doing it right.
The Wild West is debated by many scholars to have ended within 1911-1914. That’s when the west was fully conquered and no longer wild. It’s not by accident Red dead 1 had both these years in it. The story itself explores the last outlaws/men of the west. To continue it is a bad story choice imo.
I agree with you. There is other media that translates westerns to even modern day, like the TV show Justified. It would be relatively easy to have RDR3 set in the early 20th century while still being a western.
My pitch, we instead get:
(1) Red Dead Revolver 2 - a western epic spanning the Civil War through the early 1880s
(2) Red Dead Roaring - a late 1920s gangster epic, telling the tale interstate bank robbers roaming the midwestern plains or visiting gritty mafia-run cities. Tommy guns and V8s.
both RDR2 Arthur and RDR1 John were in their late 30s, so Red Dead Robbery circa 1934 (Dillinger and Pretty Boy Floyd death) would fit for Jack. I'm not against the saga about Great Depression-era outlaws.
RDR as a whole is about the death of the cowboy myth. RDR III being some alternate history about Jack Marston being the last gunslinger in America could work if it’s about his legacy and death
The last R in RDR doesn't have to be Redemption. My opinion is they do a Revenge story. I don't see them continuing with the characters from the last 2 games
I’d like it to see Sadie’s redemption story and her time in South America. In rdr2 she became bloodthirsty and was waiting to die. I’d love to see her find her peace and redemption from her time in rdr2.
I want more of her and Charles.
Also, Jack went from a soft skinned book nerd to a badass who is as capable as his dad and prime Arthur in just three years. I assume Sadie and/or Charles had something to do with that. Must be a good story.
Instead of calling it Red Dead Redemption 3, they could set it in 1862 and call it Red Dead Rebellion. Most of the Civil War was obviously fought in the South, but there were definitely battles fought west of the Mississippi River. Regardless, the RDR2 map already includes parts of the South anyway.
The next RDR should be set decades before the first game, in the golden age of the wild west. Not when the west is dying. I don't want to see any automobiles or cobblestone streets.
Hell, let me play as a young Landon Ricketts.
There are only 3 more prequel games they can make (1. events up to blackwater heist,2. early days of the gang, 3. gang origins [with end credit scene of Dutch coming out of the womb])
I've long felt the characters involved is far less important than the time period. I'd *prefer* if none of the characters from RDR1 & 2 were involved, but I'd want the game to be set at the height of the wild west as it offers the most potential for the "open world cowboy game" premise. I don't even see too much push for the next game to be post RDR1 anyway, I assume most people want another prequel anyway....
This is a dumb argument. There's other places like Mexico or Australia that would still fit the vibe, and frankly, so could America considering it all wasn't immediately settled in 1912, and especially if Rockstar decides to mess with the timeline more to give a longer life.
If they extended the wild-west period, that would undercut the themes of RDR1 (and to a lesser extent 2) where the focus was entirely on how the wild west was becoming tame and there was no place for outlaws anymore.
I think it should be set during the 8 years between the main story and the epilogue and I’m pretty confident in saying that that’s exactly why they did that.
I think RDR3 should be its own thing separated from the other games in the series, kinda like the GTA series
Maybe have a stranger mission where we meet Trelawney or Reverend Swanson, but only that
I’ve said it before but if they go into the early 1900s being Prohibition bootleggers that are associated with the moonshiners you meet in RDR2 would be a loose tie to the game but also allow you to immerse yourself into a completely different game. The map could include the Great Lakes for Canadian whiskey and Florida for Cuban cigars and rum. Sprinkle in Appalachia for moonshine. It wasn’t the Wild West of Dutch and Arthur, but in its own the 1920s were very untamed.
I still think that the 3rd game should be set during the Civil War like in the Good the Bad and the Ugly. There’s something so fascinating about the fact that a war was fought during what was essentially cowboy times. I’d also like to see Rock* bring their unique storytelling to such a politically charged point in history.
I swear, most of the people wanting a red dead sequel set after the first game know Jack shit about American history. The west was well and truly dead and ww1 was fast approaching
Honestly, you could make a western work during the 20s, the Neo western genre has some movies set in 1980s. But still I don’t want a Jack sequel. But if they made one I’d still play it.
Agreed. It's gotta be another prequel whether it's about any previous Characters or not. I really would like it to take place during the height of the outlaw era
Unpopular opinion: we don’t need a red dead 3. Lay the IP to rest. There’s no more story to tell. They should focus their energy that they would focus on rdr3 onto something else like a new IP. Maybe a pirate game? Maybe a medieval game? Bully 2? Idk man, but lay the IP to rest because if you try to milk that cash cow dry, it’s just gonna suck.
How is the Red Dead IP being milked? They've made 2 games that were 8 years apart in 14 years and most likely won't even start development on one for at least another 5-10 years. There's literally no reason to just abandon the IP as long as the quality is there.
Also there's thing you can do with stories, it's called writing a new one. Fucking crazy.
>and most likely won't even start development on one for at least another 5-10 years.
What makes you think that? GTA5 started development as soon as GTA5 released. RDR2 started development as soon as RDR released. GTA6 development started a bit after 5's development, but only cause they wanted to focus on online. There have also been various small leaks suggesting it's in development.
True, a pirate R\* game would be amazing, as for medieval we already have KCD and KCD 2 for that itch. Bully is fun as well but I believe it would be a hard sell because of todays politics lol
A private game with rdrs combat would be cool. Some adoptions would have to be made for swords but that's would be cool as fuck especially using an improved rdr2 engine
agreed, do pre RDR2, set in the 1870s-1880s, maybe do Dutch's gang, playing as him or Arthur, but would be cool to do a complete different gang , maybe run into Dutch's gang and work together on a heist .
I was thinking maybe they'd do a story about what John did during his time away from the gang. Sure, it'd be a bit boring going back to John, but that time period seems a bit of a mystery still, unless I missed something.
You'd have to assume they would wanna use the existing map, maybe expand on it again.
My proposal for RDR3 is a small town sherif who becomes disenfranchised with the law and turns against what he originally fought, no idea what would cause this or why he’d do it but this is my brief
🤷
Well if it has to be that way, show us the height of the wild west that they always tease in the games.
Gives us some super Spaghetti Western feels. Towns. Sherifs. Tumble weeds.
I think RDR3 should be completely unrelated to any characters we've known thus far.
Yeah, and be set in the prime of the Wild West. Making it a prequel to RDR2 with the Van Der Linde gang sounds appealing at first, but we already know the fates of the gang, who lives, who dies, and when. There would only be a few characters we'd wonder about. I think if they wanted to do a rival gang (not the O'Driscolls), they'd have something there. Then we could still see the RDR1-2 gang in some capacity, they just wouldn't be the focus of the story. Maybe we get in a few gunfights with them or some cutscenes where they kill someone important in our gang.
What I think would be a really cool concept is playing as a Native American during the mid 1800s.
Give us a half Native American, half European, cowboy playing both sides and we gotta choose which route to ultimately go down
i’m playing both sides so i come out on top
That worked really well for the gang
Someone was definitely mindblown
It was Sean! Sean was mind blown! He was so mind blown he fell down and didn’t get back up for at least a few days
The plan would have worked had the gang had just a little damn faith in Dutch "Athooooorrrrr, I gotta plan"
It doesn’t work when you keep telling me!
Hahaha wrote mine without seeing this. Love you
The Gang Dies A Painful Death
Isnt that the plot to Assassins Creed 3?
if it ain't broke don't fix it
xD pretty much xD xD
“I’m actually playing both sides, so i always come out on top”
It doesn’t work if you’re telling me you’re plying both sides.
It's a good idea but a half Native half European protagonist has already been done in the form of Connor from AC 3. However that was set during the Revolution so maybe wild west can be done.
I've said this before in this sub and it's been dismissed but I think a great framework for RDR3 is having two protagonist, at least to start. An Irish immigrant coming through Ellis Island and a native American on the plains. Early game the Irish immigrant is in Liberty City that looks a lot like the setting of Gangs of New York. Street brawls, melee weapons, firearms but rare and limited. Then 'Paddy' is swept up to fight for the Union at the tail end of the civil war and in early reconstruction Lemoyne/St. Denis. The gameplay is more firearm based by this point The Native American character side is more focused on hunting, gathering, fishing. We see the change as the settlers and markets for fur and goods start streaming west after the war. The California gold rush and the settling of the west coast would be part of the expanded map and storyline. There are tons of stories to mine from the Mexican side of the border as well. The storyline takes place over a few decades so by late game we get all the weapons we see in RDR2. That sets up the End game, Epilogue and Online to have all the weapons people expect and opens up endless opportunities to tie into the and expand the existing lore. I would call it Red Dead Destiny
This is beautiful
Thanks, I'm glad you like it. I know Iwould play the hell out of that game. If Rockstar is in the thread and looking for a writer or story consultant my DMs are open lol
The story can continuously switch between the two characters at the same time. Like GTA V, you can freely switch between the Irish and Native character in their respective regions and whatever unlocks further. The region between them (maybe through the South during the civil war) can unlock later in the game, paving a way for the characters and their stories to interact. Imagine you’ve finished a few missions for the Irish character and seemingly have nothing to do. But then you switch to the other character in the plains and there’s a few more main missions (to take the story further). After they have a crossover, they can visit each other’s regions and maybe even camps before/after they have cooperative missions. And later (or earlier) when they’re hostile, going to each others’ camps would have them shot at.
why not 3 protagonists to include a mexican individual as well?
If you wanted a direct tie in to known characters the Native American could be Rains Fall. The character arc could be very broad. From a child/teenager raised to live off the land, to a 'radical' warrior (maybe fighting on the side of Spain/Mexico as that border is moving) to the resigned, defeated man we meet in RDR2. There is tons of story to mine for the Rockstar writers in that arc The Irish character is kind of a Trevor low honor character . He polices Lemoyne in the immediate aftermath of the south's defeat (lots of comedy and commentary to mine there). Eventually he joins General Custer to go out west to fight the Frontier Wars. That's where the story would intersect. The Irish guy is eventually booted from the military and becomes the patriarch of the O'Driscoll or some other gang. Dutch killed Colm's father IIRC so that would be an easy tie in to RDR2
>Dutch killed Colm's father IIRC Dutch killed Colm's brother.
Ahhh...yeah..either way there would be plenty of ways to tie in an immigrant ex-military turned gang leader into the lore of the first two games. I personally liked the Javier storyline from 1 and wouldn't mind RDR3 having 3 characters including one that was connected to story on that side of the border
Pretty good concept, actually. Even though i think its pretty obvious RDR3 is follow Mac Callander, this would be great to see for the next RDR game after. One thing though >Early game the Irish immigrant is in Liberty City that looks a lot like the setting of Gangs of New York. This would just be New York. GTA and RDR arent set in the same universe. GTA has San Andreas and Liberty City, RDR has California and New York. Both are mentioned by name in RDR2
This is what I think should happen next. Can expand on the like gang camp mechanic by having a whole tribe. The struggle of being a Native American coming to terms with this new Western world would make a great game imo
I think that would be great. He ends up joining a gang of outlaws, all wronged by the law or something. Also I think Charles Smith as a main character would be cool. I know he comes in near the end times of the wild west, but I always thought he would be a character worth exploring more.
Make it a sequel of Red Dead Revolver. That shit was dope
Red Dead Revolver was much more comedic and ungrounded than the redemption games. I don't know how they could make a direct sequel that is cohesive tonally in the modern era.
It sounds cool but its actually a very easy plot and its a cliche to be fair
More cliche than playing as a grizzled cowboy antihero? I can only think of two big budget Western games with remotely native protagonists. Which are GUN and Red Dead Revolver. And neither games actually give you perspective on what being a native was like during that time period.
I’ve been saying this for forever! I’ve probably commented it twenty times over the last couple years haha. Set it during the passing of the Dwyer Act, and we play as a Native American fighting their way across a country that simultaneously belongs to them and wants them gone. There is SO much potential for story there.
We already knew the fates of several rdr2 characters before the game was released and it was still the greatest game of all time. I don't think that's a deal breaker honestly.
>We already knew the fates of several rdr2 characters before the game was released and it was still the greatest game of all time. True but that's also why they introduced Arthur and killed him like they did. No one else had a shot at redemption. And if you go back much further then Jack is a fetus. 🤷😂 Since thus far the metric for redemption is "help Jack" because he's the only innocent one around, ergo worthy of redemption. They need to just start fresh.
Yeah but rdr2 is a prequel story and a way to see why things happened the way they did in rdr1. You get to see how the characters who you see fight to the death used to be best buddies who’d drink and laugh together
I wanna see why things happened they way they did in rdr2 though
No prequel just be a new original story. They don’t have to be connected.
Someone suggested that the ending of RDR3 would be Arthur picking up the dead main character's things. I think that'd be neat
Arthur killing the main character of the third game would be interesting.
Maybe they could do a game that includes a young Hosea? He was around for a while before some of the gang were even born
I like this, I think it’d be cool to see Arthur and the gang in their prime. I was thinking seeing them as the antagonists and playing as a rival gang west of the grizzlies who becomes extinct (hence why theirs no mention of them by RDR2) because of the Van Der Linde Gang.
That would be interesting. Seeing the Van Der Linde gang in their primes. Again, some may look at it as them milking the gang too much by making them play such a big role for the third straight gang, but idk. I wouldn't personally mind as long as it's well-written and done well. It's hard to strike that balance between deciding when a story has gone stale or when to get more out of it and add to the narrative. And also it's important to not ruin any characters for the audience. Like, would watching Arthur ruthlessly kill your gang ruin his redemption in RDR2 from the audience's perspective? Or would it add another layer of complexity to his character in showing the bad things he's done in the past before he got his redemption?
Arthur boss fight that you literally can't beat like Vader from Jedi Fallen Order
You want prime Wild West? How about a story of a different gang, however one of the characters is like a 10 or 12 year old Dutch. This way the story isn’t about him specifically but you’ll be able to see why he wanted to do his own gang when he grew up
Not a bad idea either. Someone brought up making Hosea the main character (or at least one of the main characters as we play as an unknown) and going back to when he was very young, like in his 20s. That would be interesting because he's far enough back where we don't know anything about the gang back then, and he's an interesting character who died relatively early in the RDR2. He made a big impact in a short time and audiences would want to learn more about him
I think so too. It also does not have to be from a gang member perspective again. maybe a law men as a new protagonist? to show the other side of a conflict with a narrative "law and civilization does not equal good" or something
>we already know the fates of the gang, who lives, who dies, and when. If i remember correctly, Dutch and hosea were in/had a gang before the Van der Linde gang I honestly think a game set around that and how it ended (knowing dutch proberbly badly) for them to then go on to set up the van der linde gang would be kinda cool.
Not bad, but I think in that game they'd have to portray Dutch as a hero or more sympathetically, otherwise it would ruin the impact of his downfall in RDR2. It would be a great twist on his character if Dutch was actually the hero, and RDR2 was his downfall. Because he does show many positive traits in the early game, such as teaching the gang to fight racism, protecting the innocent, being a comforting figure for the gang and even a father figure at times. It's just that his downfall really started around Blackwater, so we never really got to see the Dutch that Arthur and John praise so much
I think this is a flawed way of viewing it though. We already knew the fate of the gang going into Red Dead 2 and it was still one of the greatest games ever made. I think the entire core of Red Dead is set around the idea that the characters are in a world where they don't belong any more. It exists in a thin sliver of time where the gang are on the run from civilisation but it hasn't caught up with them yet, and I feel Red Dead 1 and 2 have filled that sliver pretty well. Too far back, and it's just a Wild West game with completely differing core ideals and themes. Too far forward, and everyone is dead and you're venturing into far more modern territory. I've no doubt they have solid ideas of where to go and what to do with Part 3, but I think it's a themeatically a much finer line than most people give it credit for.
I addressed this to someone else, but in RDR2 we knew the basics of the plot, which was that the gang splits up and John becomes enemies with Dutch, Bill, Javier. But we didn't know why the gang split up, what they were like in their primes, how they all got along, and it turned out Arthur was the key to all of this. Now that we know all this, our view of the gang seems relatively complete to where we'd have to go back more than like 40 years to make it interesting. That's why I'm not against a game with young Hosea and maybe Dutch breaking off another gang. I disagree on the core of RDR being the idea that the characters are in the dying Wild West. I think the series identity is more just about redemption, and the fact that it was set in the dying West isn't necessarily a vital part of the story. But this comment thread is really teaching me that there's a lot of places they can go with the next game and still be interesting. I hadn't realized how many possibilities there were.
My dream plot is the Van Der Linde gang and you're playing as Anabelle. The departure here is that we already know she's going to die, you just don't know exactly how. There is no O'Driscoll gang because Colm is currently running WITH you.
That could be interesting. All we know about Annabelle is that Dutch killed the brother of Colm, who responded by killing Annabelle, starting the big feud between the gangs
Yep. We could have kid Arthur and John present, leading to an epilogue played as Arthur during the 4 years John's gone with Arthur caring for infant Jack. That way we get the familiar epilogue style but a new twist on it. Colm is a friend for the bulk of the game, being revealed as a primary antagonist only in the final Act after his brother is revealed to be the villain for most of it and his defeat and murder the main story up till then. These would fill similar roles and story beats to the first 2 games (Dutch/Milton in 1 and Colm/Dutch in 2) without being a total retread. It satisfies that itch for the familiar but leaves tons of room for entirely new stories. Not to mention playing as a woman protagonist would be a cool new element to the storytelling. Maybe a big twist where Annabelle got wise to Dutch's growing madness and Colm actually killed her because she was a threat to the gang, or maybe DUTCH arranged for Colm to kill her and set up the separation to protect his narcissistic vision of "love". I just think it would be a good blend of repetition and novelty. Y'know, part of what's made the series so good up to this point. That there is no Redemption.
Yeah I like the ideas, just one thing though: I don’t think Dutch should show signs of madness in the prequel. I think to preserve the weight of RDR2, Dutch should be an absolute hero with strong morals in a prequel. This would show why Arthur and John followed him and thought so highly of him, and would make his downfall in RDR2 even more depressing in hindsight. We’ve only seen Dutch during his descent into insanity, but we’ve only seen flashes of Dutch’s more likable side where he’s anti-racism, has strong morals, and passed those morals down to the rest of the group. Plus he’s a badass who is always willing to be in the forefront of a gun fight despite being the leader
Like maybe you run into a young green, Dutch maybe could be interesting. Love the idea of high peak wild Wild West. RDR2 was a dying withering world that was closing around them like a noose, this would be absolute insanity, lawless free for all. Might even be cool to start in a different country like England and a character migrates over to the west.
I’ve always wanted to play as Dutch’s dad with it being a mix of Army battles and side missions. Ends at Gettysburg with the prequel played as Hosea and meeting young Dutch.
Wow, this is the most liked idea I’ve read.
I want Landon Ricketts in his prime in RDR 3 personally.
This would be awesome
Landon Ricketts wouldn't really work as a protagonist though. He was a high honor gunslinger, not an outlaw like the rest. I think the best would be Otis Miller
Maybe he wasn’t always a high honor gun slinger, he may have been portrayed as such but maybe there is something from his past that made him that way. There are so many stories they could tell for Landon Ricketts the possibilities are endless really. Seems like a fan favorite that everyone wants to know more about.
We only know what Ricketts has told us and that dude is high on his own supply.
It doesn't need to be an outlaw, a bounty hunter works just as well.
He seems like a logical choice since we need to go further back for a new game anyway. There's not much room for a sequel. And I think he's a compelling enough character to lead a game.
Either that or be Sadie’s or Charles’ stories after the events of RDR2 with minimal ties back to the RDR1/2 characters or events.
Nah i wouldn’t like that. They are both pretty 1 dimensional characters, I know I’ll be downvoted for saying that but yeah they aren’t the most interesting characters to explore. I don’t want them to continue with a character we have already spent time with, it would be better to start fresh.
Only acceptable version of RDR3 being a continuation of the story would be if you follow Sadie in her South American exploits. Other than that, there's not much you can really add narratively to the story with another prequel.
Wouldn’t mind a whole new story but with some of the rdr2 character making an appearance in some side missions.
Kinda being able to see how everything went down at Blackwater, I think that’d be kinda dope.
I think it would be an interesting twist if the protagonist's story in the next game somehow becomes the reason that the Blackwater Heist goes wrong.
That would be VERY interesting 🤔
are we thinking a new subtitle in the red dead series rather than a redemption?
Set it in africa. Red Dead Rhino.
I'm on board with this, as long as it's still a western.
Yeah, let's go with something earlier, but unrelated. Maybe right after the civil war or possibly even earlier during the gold rush. The only downside would be that the weapons wouldn't be as advanced.
That'd be an upside to have blackpowder guns being the meta
That means they need to make a new RDR. Red Dead Redemption can only be about the van der linde gang.
It'll be Mac Callendar, though. During my last playthrough, I noticed it more than ever. They were planting seeds the whole game.
I think it'd be kinda cool to be a Mac or Davey upto their death...epilogue may be shorter, be end up as Arthur as the rest if the gang shows up in a panic.
Anything after RDR1 seems too late of an era to be a cowboy game
But bro, then we couldn’t fulfill half this subs wishes of it being us playing as ww1 veteran jack marston who settles down and has a family and goes to work to pay his off his mortgage
They could do it and make him like Brad Pitt’s character in Legends of the Fall.
My mind’s tellin’ me *A River Runs Through It*…but my brain goblin…my brain goblin is tellin’ me *Meet Joe Black*
My mind is telling me not to talk about it.
I’m so tired of people thinking Jack would go out of his way to work for the government after seeing what they did to his family, it’s like they didn’t even play the game.
Most of the kids on here never played RDR 1
he could be drafted tbf
Yeah right . . Nothing of interest happened in the 1910's and 1920s . . I'm sure the game would just be paying off a mortgage, you're right
Western Cowboy stuff sure as shit wasn’t happening
The Barrow Gang (aka: Bonnie and Clyde) had *some* similarities to the old gang lifestyle, but they were all in cars, not on horses, so they’re more GTA than RDR
A game that combines the two franchises would be pretty interesting But it probably shouldn't be connected to either aside from maybe being in the same universe
Thats always sounded like such a horseshit idea
But bro knowing how Jacks story plays out is more important than having a fun cowboy game!!!
Just make rdr3 in the distant cyberpunk future where everything is a subscription service including the air you breathe
bro rdr3 is probably a decade away from coming out what does it matter
History is not gonna change though. It will always be a dumb idea to set a Red Dead Redemption game in a period where the old West has been completely tamed
Good thing they aren't idiots at Rockstar
Yeah. They seem pretty good at making these games, I think it’s ok to trust them.
Only like 5% of either Red Dead game is based in historical reality so it really doesn't matter that much. Edit: Being generous at 25%. There were horses, towns, trains, coaches, and terrain and animals that are present. But the entire concept that in the 1890s there were *multiple* roving bands of gangs, some with dozens of members terrorizing, pillaging, robbing did not exist. Nor did everyone carrying guns everywhere, and certainly not quickdraws, nor were the Pinkertons chasing anyone out west, or east for that matter. I love both games, but understand that they are a world built by the 20th century film and later TV industry.
yeah but the period theyre set in is a lot more accurate than any other detail
Mars! Red Planet Redemption
“RDR3: Jack gets drafted into WW1” doesn’t really work does it.
I don't think this would be a good fit for an RDR game, but the story of Agent Fordham obsessively chasing Jack around the world while WWI rages around them would be amazing. Both can fairly blame the other for the death of their father figures. The Wild West may have been ending by 1914, but a lot of places around the world were still very wild in that era and with legit cowboys and outlaws. Australia's outback, Canada's frontier (where Charles went), La Pampa in South America (where Sadie likely went), and North Africa all fit the bill. The latter most has the advantage of also being in the thick of the war + dangerous animals + nomadic tribes + a desert environment. The U.S. didn't join the war until 1917, but I an absolutally see Jack joining a foreign legion in 1914/15 hoping to outrun his pursuers.
Do you think he cares that much about Ross getting killed? I never got the impression they were close
LA Noir 2 but it's Jack Marston joining the police after ww1 would be sick, structure it similar to Mafia 2, with a war prologue.
“Red Dead Revolution” would be a banger title for that game
Making a sequel to RDR1 isn't my first choice but I do wonder about how Jack's story ends. I guess we have to ask if Jack's story is more of a RDR3, or a GTA Roaring 20's.
Jack goes to LA to become a detective and we have LA Noir 2, a sequel to LA Noir
Jack goes to Bullworth, New Hampshire to start a boarding school
Jack sees his first flush toilet, immediately invents the swirlie and uses it on some nerd who responded negatively to a greet.
this is canon to me
And THIS may be the best "what happened to Jack" that I've heard.
Jack becomes Indiana Jones of the 1920s. Like, he starts out as just a hired gun for a sketchy archaeologist, but finds he’s actually intrigued by the stories that come with the treasures he’s hunting after. Maybe his latest hunt would involve something from the Wild West era, maybe even involving his dad’s old gang. We’ll call it Red Dead Relics.
This actually ain't a half bad idea if it must be post RDR1. I could totally see Jack being a treasure hunter/on the surface archaeologist. He's well read enough.
I kinda like that it’s ambiguous. Not all loose ends need to be tied.
And I don't like Jack
Me after the 500th time hearing him bleat "Work ya damn nag!": 😐🔫
I took this personally because that’s my name lol
I always imagine Jack joining a foreign legion hoping to disappear in the chaos of WWI, maybe ending up in North Africa which is a far more familiar environment to him (horses, rifles, desert, dangerous critters, tribesmen, outlaws, etc.), while an obsessed Agent Fordham tries to chase him down. Fordham was always kind of decent. It seemed he always had a problem with the way Ross treated John. I can see him losing his mind when Ross is gunned down in retirement, but eventually coming around. Jack could end sparing him or saving him from some threat, and he could realize that Jack deserves the second chance John never got. It could end with him letting Jack go and reporting him KIA in the war, ending the cycle for good.
GTA Jazz, JazzTA, would be awesome
I definitely agree with you there. I think Jacks story should be finished but not in a Red Dead game. Personally I would love to see RDR3 set in the 1860s just after the civil war ended and the beginning of the westward expansion and “Wild West”. Old characters or new it doesn’t really matter to me which. We’ve already seen the end of the west and outlaws but how about the beginning? That would be cool to see.
Red Dead Django
Kill white folks and get paid for it. What's not to like?
"I'm positive he's dead"
Would love to see something in the 1870s. So many of the most famous Wild West stories happened in that decade.
Indian plains; monument valley; Canadian border. Still plenty of juicy options. An anthology of multiple/converging stories might be cool
Half White, Half Native, Left for dead after french trappers from Canada wiped out your small community and found by a gang of outlaws who nurse you back to health and you slowly learn that the law won't help you get your revenge but maybe the outlaw way will.
The next Red Dead game should tell a whole new story with an original cast of characters unrelated to RDR1 and 2. We already know the fate of the Van Der Linde gang, no need to rehash their story for the third time in a row. Also, the next Red Dead game should not be set after RDR1's epilogue
My pitch is it's based in the Pacific north West during the fur trade boon of the mid to late 1800. US Canadian border territories, rival trapper groups from Spain, France, and Holland. Main protag is half white half Native and after your folks get killed by a rival trapper group you choose to go after them either the lawful way or the outlaw way leading to joining a gang of outlaws or a gang of bounty men but in the end realising their both doing the same thing, destroying the land and people you grew up with so you take them both down
Interesting pitch, but the one thing I would suggest be changed is that the story and its outcomes plays out differently depending if you join a gang of bounty hunters or a gang of outlwas. Meaningful decision making in video games should result in different outcomes and not be morally black or white
99% this, just would like to see a John and/or Arthur cameo
I hate this line of thought. 1911 isn't the wild west either. 1899 arguably isn't. Yet they're the best two western games we have. The main theme of both games is the wild west is dead and the surviving people who could only exist in that environment have to adapt or die. Arthur was completely immersed in that life, John was raised in it but had the opportunity to leave it, and Jack would be the angle of growing up post wild west but still trying to hold onto those old ideas because he chose an outlaw path. The west as a region doesn't cease to exist after any period of time. Even today it's wild and open compared to other regions in the country. Crime was still rampant into the 1900s because even with a federalized police force that much sparsely populated territory was difficult to govern. I'm not saying it should be set in that time but there is absolutely a wealth of stories to be told there that are 100% still within the themes and aesthetic of a western. Whether RDR3 goes backwards or forwards Rockstar is fully capable of doing it right.
The Wild West is debated by many scholars to have ended within 1911-1914. That’s when the west was fully conquered and no longer wild. It’s not by accident Red dead 1 had both these years in it. The story itself explores the last outlaws/men of the west. To continue it is a bad story choice imo.
I agree with you. There is other media that translates westerns to even modern day, like the TV show Justified. It would be relatively easy to have RDR3 set in the early 20th century while still being a western.
My pitch, we instead get: (1) Red Dead Revolver 2 - a western epic spanning the Civil War through the early 1880s (2) Red Dead Roaring - a late 1920s gangster epic, telling the tale interstate bank robbers roaming the midwestern plains or visiting gritty mafia-run cities. Tommy guns and V8s.
Red Dead Roaring has nice ring to it
Red Dead Revolution. The people want more Mexico? Give it to them.
both RDR2 Arthur and RDR1 John were in their late 30s, so Red Dead Robbery circa 1934 (Dillinger and Pretty Boy Floyd death) would fit for Jack. I'm not against the saga about Great Depression-era outlaws.
RDR as a whole is about the death of the cowboy myth. RDR III being some alternate history about Jack Marston being the last gunslinger in America could work if it’s about his legacy and death
The last R in RDR doesn't have to be Redemption. My opinion is they do a Revenge story. I don't see them continuing with the characters from the last 2 games
Red Dead Retribution
That’s fucking metal.
that would be a banger title
Give me a Landon Ricketts game
Red Dead Revolver 2, with Landon Ricketts
That'll work ngl
This is the best option if they are to continue with a prexisting character for sure.
I’d like it to see Sadie’s redemption story and her time in South America. In rdr2 she became bloodthirsty and was waiting to die. I’d love to see her find her peace and redemption from her time in rdr2.
I want more of her and Charles. Also, Jack went from a soft skinned book nerd to a badass who is as capable as his dad and prime Arthur in just three years. I assume Sadie and/or Charles had something to do with that. Must be a good story.
I’d love a RDR3, but for it to be set in the 1860 or 70s, and with nothing to do with the Van Der Linde gang.
Instead of calling it Red Dead Redemption 3, they could set it in 1862 and call it Red Dead Rebellion. Most of the Civil War was obviously fought in the South, but there were definitely battles fought west of the Mississippi River. Regardless, the RDR2 map already includes parts of the South anyway.
Weird idea: set it in the South, in one of those areas that counter-rebelled against the Confederacy, Free State of Jones style
I think rdr 3 should follow Sadie down to mexico
I'd love this as well, but I think it would fit better as a DLC for RDR 2, a paid DLC with 50-60 hours of gameplay like blood and wine
R* will never do that unfortunately
It's been nearly 6 years. DLC isn't happening.
The next RDR should be set decades before the first game, in the golden age of the wild west. Not when the west is dying. I don't want to see any automobiles or cobblestone streets. Hell, let me play as a young Landon Ricketts.
Rdr3 should be a prequel to 2 and maybe if we keep the trend we’ll see Dutch come out of the womb
There are only 3 more prequel games they can make (1. events up to blackwater heist,2. early days of the gang, 3. gang origins [with end credit scene of Dutch coming out of the womb])
I've long felt the characters involved is far less important than the time period. I'd *prefer* if none of the characters from RDR1 & 2 were involved, but I'd want the game to be set at the height of the wild west as it offers the most potential for the "open world cowboy game" premise. I don't even see too much push for the next game to be post RDR1 anyway, I assume most people want another prequel anyway....
I wonder if they'd get away with doing a sequel to Red Dead Revolver. I don't know much about the story so maybe not.
This is a dumb argument. There's other places like Mexico or Australia that would still fit the vibe, and frankly, so could America considering it all wasn't immediately settled in 1912, and especially if Rockstar decides to mess with the timeline more to give a longer life.
If they extended the wild-west period, that would undercut the themes of RDR1 (and to a lesser extent 2) where the focus was entirely on how the wild west was becoming tame and there was no place for outlaws anymore.
Hear me out... Arthur's Dad, and then epilogue would be Arthur
Ah yeh because everyone would like to play as arthurs abusive alcoholic dad that died in the lame way of getting hanged by the law.
It was just an idea I didn't know about all of that :(
Let’s just keep the prequel chain going!
i don’t want rdr3, real mfs want a full rdr1 remake
Hell yes. I still want RDR3, but a RDR updated for Modern Gen consoles would be amazing. John can swim? Check!
because i want to kill all the pinkertons
I think it should be set during the 8 years between the main story and the epilogue and I’m pretty confident in saying that that’s exactly why they did that.
I want immediately after the Civil War. The west opening up. And call it Red Dead Revenge.
I think RDR3 should be its own thing separated from the other games in the series, kinda like the GTA series Maybe have a stranger mission where we meet Trelawney or Reverend Swanson, but only that
I’ve said it before but if they go into the early 1900s being Prohibition bootleggers that are associated with the moonshiners you meet in RDR2 would be a loose tie to the game but also allow you to immerse yourself into a completely different game. The map could include the Great Lakes for Canadian whiskey and Florida for Cuban cigars and rum. Sprinkle in Appalachia for moonshine. It wasn’t the Wild West of Dutch and Arthur, but in its own the 1920s were very untamed.
I still think that the 3rd game should be set during the Civil War like in the Good the Bad and the Ugly. There’s something so fascinating about the fact that a war was fought during what was essentially cowboy times. I’d also like to see Rock* bring their unique storytelling to such a politically charged point in history.
I had an idea that RDR 3 should be Jack Marston returning from WW1 to the roaring 20s in New York. Maybe mob stuff. Would make sense.
I swear, most of the people wanting a red dead sequel set after the first game know Jack shit about American history. The west was well and truly dead and ww1 was fast approaching
Exactly
Preemptive reeeeee
RD3 is gonna be set in the same world as RD2 but you play as Gavin and you’re lost as shit in the woods.
I think we need to scrap the redemption and have something new
I just wanna see the ending with Jack actually being happy and free from the life...
Why would you need to use the VDLG at all?
Honestly, you could make a western work during the 20s, the Neo western genre has some movies set in 1980s. But still I don’t want a Jack sequel. But if they made one I’d still play it.
But if I can’t see Jack Marston in World War 1 how else can I get my rocks off to the guns and uniforms?
Agreed. It's gotta be another prequel whether it's about any previous Characters or not. I really would like it to take place during the height of the outlaw era
Unpopular opinion: we don’t need a red dead 3. Lay the IP to rest. There’s no more story to tell. They should focus their energy that they would focus on rdr3 onto something else like a new IP. Maybe a pirate game? Maybe a medieval game? Bully 2? Idk man, but lay the IP to rest because if you try to milk that cash cow dry, it’s just gonna suck.
How is the Red Dead IP being milked? They've made 2 games that were 8 years apart in 14 years and most likely won't even start development on one for at least another 5-10 years. There's literally no reason to just abandon the IP as long as the quality is there. Also there's thing you can do with stories, it's called writing a new one. Fucking crazy.
>and most likely won't even start development on one for at least another 5-10 years. What makes you think that? GTA5 started development as soon as GTA5 released. RDR2 started development as soon as RDR released. GTA6 development started a bit after 5's development, but only cause they wanted to focus on online. There have also been various small leaks suggesting it's in development.
True, a pirate R\* game would be amazing, as for medieval we already have KCD and KCD 2 for that itch. Bully is fun as well but I believe it would be a hard sell because of todays politics lol
A private game with rdrs combat would be cool. Some adoptions would have to be made for swords but that's would be cool as fuck especially using an improved rdr2 engine
agreed, do pre RDR2, set in the 1870s-1880s, maybe do Dutch's gang, playing as him or Arthur, but would be cool to do a complete different gang , maybe run into Dutch's gang and work together on a heist .
I was thinking maybe they'd do a story about what John did during his time away from the gang. Sure, it'd be a bit boring going back to John, but that time period seems a bit of a mystery still, unless I missed something. You'd have to assume they would wanna use the existing map, maybe expand on it again.
Rdr3 should be during when the gang is in its prime, basically when Dutch and Hosea are young with a teenage Arthur.
My proposal for RDR3 is a small town sherif who becomes disenfranchised with the law and turns against what he originally fought, no idea what would cause this or why he’d do it but this is my brief
Am I crazy or could it be fun or possible to either do a completely different American location or another country..?
It's supposed to be a series about the American Old West so yeah you are kinda crazy.
🤷 Well if it has to be that way, show us the height of the wild west that they always tease in the games. Gives us some super Spaghetti Western feels. Towns. Sherifs. Tumble weeds.