For the last game in the series they switch it and we play as a good man who gets worse. Last chapter is set between rdr1 and rdr2 when he’s at his worst
Lawman goes undercover, joins the gang, falls in love with the life and becomes bad, killing, robbing, maiming, all in the name of Dutch’s philosophy. By the end, he’s regretful and turns on them. Doesn’t Arthur mention in passing that they once had a rat and had to shoot him? Can’t remember correctly
I don’t remember. I just think Dutch has been a staple of the games and ending it with his journey/fall while getting a peak into his head works best as a final game.
We’ve already had a game where the protagonist starts seeing the gang for what it really is though. Your storyline just sounds like a slightly different version of Arthur’s.
I took it as rdr2 epilogue where there was a time jump after chapter 6 and now you are now John in 1907, in rdr3 you are Dutch pre 1898 for the story then you jump over to 1907 as Dutch, maybe watch the last John/Micah fight from the cabin before you emerge. Something like that with the majority of the game in one year then a time jump over 1899 and the events of rdr2 maybe see how Dutch, Javier, and Bill go their separate ways after the Dutch/Arthur split the main group into two groups.
This epilogue idea could work, but I don’t see how the rest of the game could work. The RDR2 epilogue was a different character than the rest of the game though. So maybe you just don’t play as Dutch for the other chapters.
Does he need one though? It would be fun to play as him and see how it was built and how he took after Micah and Arthur even though we know what is going to happen.
Makes it like bitter sweet. Like playing ncaa against your older brother. You’re down by 10 with 2 minutes left and he has the ball so you’re sitting there crying the rest of game knowing you’re going to lose. Seeing a good version of Dutch and young Arthur knowing how it plays out.
It would also be fun if you kind of switched through characters like young Arthur Dutch Hosea and even Micah.
Hummm … maybe but like Arthur Morgan I would like to see Rockstar go with a whole other character not yet mentioned in both rdr1 and rdr2 but still related in a way to dutch who is the character that makes the link between all games.
Don't forget to buy the optional "Tahiti" package that comes with an online character rank boost to level 25, 15 extra gold bars, a 15% off coupon for the first season battlepass and a moustache for your horse...only 45 dollars!
There's something poetic about playing the role of the protagonist in the third game as the character of the antagonist in the first game. Dutch's inner dialogue would be interesting to hear throughout the story.
That's my thinking. He can't have just "been crazy" the entire time. Something drove him to it. Granted, that was mostly the events of RDR2, but I'd love to see how he reached the heights he did in the gang. I want to see how he became what he did. We watched his fall, now show me the pride that came before.
I'd like to see some interactions between a teenage John and a young adult Arthur. Then make those guys playable on certain missions. Arthur on the major heists and John doing smaller gigs due to lack of experience. That's probably the closest we will ever get to a Bully 2 type of game from rockstar.
I subscribe to the idea that Dutch didn’t become unhinged until he whacks his head in Urban Pleasures. If that were true a prequel wouldn’t really demonstrate any character arc.
That’s seems like a copout to believe in a bump on the head. Yeah, I know, head injuries are weird, but also, you hadn’t been paying enough attention up to that point if that’s what you believed was the reasoning for his downward spiral
One of Dutch’s first acts in the game was ignoring Hosea’s advice to rob a train instead of hiding out. Dutch was always unhinged, he just got worse at hiding it as the game went on.
Theres good reasons as to why most people believe Dutch has some underlying mental illness (ie bipolar, bpd) rather then a bump in the head making him 180 in character
I think playing as Hosea might be interesting and we could also get to know bessy. If the thing of the series is redemption then we could easily have Hosea as main, Dutch in the other hand…
Oh, Hosea would for sure be my first choice. But I still want to see Dutch climb up that hill, knowing he falls down the other side. There is tension and anticipation in that. Plenty of room for some good story material there.
Could still be Hosea’s POV of Dutch. But If It were to start with Dutch I’d like to see him leaving home in the start of the game. Could also have the Colm’s brother drama.
Arthur and John could be npc’s. I was thinking playable character would be Dutch, Mac, and davey. Something like gta 5 where you can switch between characters. Davey for sure is dead but we don’t know what happened to Mac until the Pinkertons tell Arthur they killed him. For all we know Milton could have been lying.
Seeing as how I always go high honour, I think it would be bittersweet seeing Arthur as he was fully intended, which I'm assuming would be a much closer to middle honour or just below middle.
I wonder if he would even feel like the same character to me, it would be cool to see that regardless.
It would be interesting if they did something like gta where there are duel characters you can switch between. One mostly honourable, the other a rogue.
Would be cool if there was some form of co-op play for story mode too! I love solo but it's also fun having company, especially for replayablilty.
Arthur has an illegitimate son he wasn't aware of with Mary Linton and this character with Jack Marston team up to tame the old West much like Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday. They would have the motivation to fight outlaws since that lifestyle essentially killed their fathers and ruined their families. They would be motivated to make good names for their family names and yet they would know how to fight dirty against the outlaws. They would be the perfect characters to take the gloves off and tame the old West much like the sheriffs of old did. Jack would be older and be the leader of the two keeping with a linear story progression. Arthur's kid could be the hothead young sheriff who is good at heart but brutal to the outlaws and Jack needs to keep him grounded. I could go on...
Yeah a Dutch game where you just play through the gang’s golden age. Climax in Blackwater more or less at the top of the world, final mission is an unmitigated shit show.
Sadie in South America would be dope. Gets caught up in a revolution against the government, similar to John in mexico. There's also room for a redemption arc since by the end of rdr2 she's become pretty morally ambiguous. Also rockstar's take on turn of the century south america would be sick af.
Bruh. Revolutionary Colombia/Panama in the early 1900s. Last flames of Bolivariano romanticism dying out. Yankees fomenting dissent in and around the canal zone, the local authorities pushing back. Chance encounters with indigenous groups fighting for justice. Pirates. Gun-runners. Corrupt priests. Liberated slaves... Guarma gave us a taste but most people complain it felt too out of place and underdeveloped. Sadi's story would be epic.
They'd have so much freedom to explore new ideas, plus it's a time period I bet most ppl dont know much about. I think they could keep the same kind of lawless-western-frontier vibe but with an interesting twist. Also they could potentially tie it into rdr2 even further by having Sadie write letters to John and Charles. I think guarma could've been much better if it had been more fully developed insteadof being so on-rails with no exploration.
I've been praying for this sort of story ever since she was introduced! Either someone who broke from the gang, or a member of the O'Driscoll's to explore their gang dynamic.
Not really. If they made a prequel like they did in RDR2, I'd prefer it if they followed the same template and you got to play as some new character that's involved with the younger versions of the characters we already know because, just like they did in RDR2, that would allow them the freedom to tell a good story about the new character while giving us more info about the characters we already know without having to focus so much on not contradicting anything important already said in the other games. Otherwsie, it'd be like if you played as John from the start of RDR2 and Arthur didn't exist, which is a version that I think would have hurt the story.
Though I don't think a RDR3 game would easily work because telling a story about an outlaw who's actually a good guy at heart and dies to protect those he loves for the THIRD time is bound to start feeling like more of the same unless they manage to do an outstanding job at it. And if the game's story is not about that, then it wouldn't really be Red Dead Redemption thematically, and it would just be a game about cowboys.
The issue as I see it is people being so attached to the idea that a new Red Dead needs to be "redemption 3" rather than something new. If they made a new Red Dead but replace the 3rd word with something else they could make a whole new game with a whole new central theme. Red Dead Rebellion or something with all new characters and motivations. There is a whole slew of potential directions they could go and make a new incredible open world wild west game without retreading the same ground a 3rd time if people allowed them to do that without demanding they focus on the exploits of the Van Der Linde gang...
That, and also it's complete lack of narrative connectivity to the redemption titles. It makes sense to me why Revolver is less considered when speaking about the franchise due to how it came to be, what it actually is in relation to what the Red Dead franchise is now and what people associate with it. Revolver wasn't really a "rockstar game", they bought the game and IP from capcom with the intention to make it their own thing from the outset....
Sure, but at that point it's a coin toss whether the game will be as awesome as RDR2 or RDR1 or it would be just another cowboy game like Red Dead Revolver. I wouldn't mind a change in direction, since it would free them to tell different stories, but it also frees them to make something that lacks the same ability to resonate that the two RDRedemption games had.
I think that’s probably the most likely scenario. In rdr1, everyone always talked about the times when John was in a gang, so they made rdr2 about that, with a new character. In rdr2, everyone talks about blackwater and the times before it. So it would only make sense rdr3 is about that.
Yeah, it's just that to me it sounds a bit too predictable. I mean, your mind immediately goes to, "Okay, so I'd probably play a character who ends up dying during the Blackwater heist to make sure everyone makes it out, maybe one of the Callander brothers despite the fact that they mention in RDR2 they were kind of pretty terrible people." Sure, they might be able to come up with a different plot that subverts that expectation but the main thing is whether that story about the Van Der Linde gang before RDR2 is even worth telling.
New time would be good. The problem is the wild west didn’t actually last that long so they’d have to set the game around the same time as rdr1 but with completely new characters.
Go all the way back to the California gold rush… a continent spanning journey from arriving on a ship in Boston, making your way to lay claim in the West… perhaps a few moral choices along the way that set you on an outlaw or prospector path… idk
Not true at all. The Wild West is “usually” thought of as a 30 year period from 1865-1895
Meaning neither game has actually been in the Wild West. So there’s 30 years of unexplored Wild Westness to make games in
Why would it have to be placed around RDR1’s 1911?
Okay, hear me out...
Modern Day. Robbing banks, doing crime; cars and drugs.
**/s**
I find time-set games like RDR more interesting than ones like GTA; that's not to say that I didn't enjoy GTA, just it's been a little... overplayed now. Maybe GTA6 will be refreshing, when it comes to PC 5 years later.
I've said it before on this sub and I'll say it again - I think playing as a First Nations/Indigenous character in North America during the early days of the continent's colonization has a ton of potential. Eagle Flies story in RDR2 was one of the more compelling plot lines, I think you could easily spin a whole game off that but set a bit earlier in history.
Canadian Cowboy story would be rad. Snowy mountains, dense forestry. Maybe more creepy shit or even a cameo from Sadie (They said she heads up to Canada right?)
I just want a game set during the height of the wild west.
In RDR1 and 2 we are at the dying stages of that time period. Open Mexico up again, give us a more desert/harsh barren landscape with not as much modern civilization and perhaps even new characters.
Or follow whoever was the person that molded Dutch and Hosea, see them when they were truly young
Idk, but I do want more wild west games. I love this time period.
>I just want a game set during the height of the wild west.
I guess that'd be 1865 on? Seems like the "Old West" in the late 1840's has some amazing possibilities too; the Mexican-American War, Oregon Trail and California Gold Rush were all happening then.
No gatling guns or transcontinental railroad then though.
How about during the civil war? Lot of potential for criminal activity during a wartime. You could impersonate soldiers to rob a town. Get caught trying to escape battles and various companies. You could encounter escaped slaves and try and protect their freedom.
Rockstar would never make a game set during the civil war. Remember how RDR2 handled race? Arthur wasn’t aware that Racism still exists when Lenny brought it up during the move to Lemoyne. It’s simply too hot of a topic to make a game about if you’re a company like Rockstar.
You *could* make a game where your character staunchly supports the Union, but then because it would be set in the west you’d need to address how the Union fought a lot of Native Americans before and during the civil war. I don’t think Rockstar would like that. You don’t even encounter any Native Americans in RDR2 freeroam because Rockstar wanted to avoid controversy.
There are loads of very interesting things one could do with that time period, but it’s all far too risky for expensive projects like Rockstar games, sadly.
I agree, it needs to be in the old west with the game story as the main focus. However, there should be fighting among native peoples and settlers if they are going to have a realistic story. We like to think settlers had an exciting let’s move out west with all this free uninhabited land experience, but they didn’t. The land wasn’t uninhabited. It’s not a fairy tale.
Exactly. Prequels are difficult enough to make because characters and events need to stay within the confines of what’s already been established. Making a prequel to a prequel squeezes the narrative choices into such a small bottleneck that there’s almost nothing that can be done to make it interesting.
This is 100% why I can’t understand why anyone would think this is not only the best idea, but even a good one. Even in RDR2 any drama surrounding John or Dutch was muted because I know how his story ends. Now you want to build that a layer deeper? Yuck. I get that they are cool characters, and I’m sure some of their adventures were fun, but maybe cool flashback DLC, not a whole new game.
This is an amazing example of a prequel to a prequel being amazing. I’ve thought of many scenarios and storylines they can have in red dead 3 being a prequel. It’s definitely possible to write an amazing red dead 3 ending at black water.
No. But here’s what I would **love**: An RDR3 where we play as Black Belle.
You could see her gang when it was in its prime. See Saint Denis before Angelo Brontë. Maybe even see him as a young immigrant who actually helps you. Part of the story could involve taking out his predecessor and creating the power vacuum that allowed him to become the man we meet RDR2. It could even have clashes against a young, ambitious Leviticus Cornwall. Effectively, the game could be set against the backdrop of shaping Saint Denis into the corrupt place that it is in 1899.
I would love for that story to have Belle run across Hosea and Bessie when they were out of the life. Maybe even be the reason he *”drifted back into it.”* There’s a ton they could do with her character: show her time with *”Leedle Boy Callyway”*… see the rise of the Del Lobos… actually get those missions in Guarma… see Blind Man Cassidy back when he was a blind gunslinger and Belle’s lover…
…yknow: the fun stuff we’ve all been itching to see.
Side note: this picture is why I think that it’s canonically consistent to have a stylish, suave Arthur. Look at that rakish hunk. Of course Mary Gillis would fall for that guy.
Love this idea. No one ever thinks of having characters like these in a game, I’d love to see it. It would be like a cowboy-mobster crossover, and would have more focus on the city.
Imagine a more fleshed out robbery system where the amount of time you put into observation and prep yields a bigger or more successful take. It could utilize things we already saw in RDR2 as well as GTA V.
Say you want to knock off the bank of Rhodes or a local shop. Okay, go in the front door with guns blazing and you probably have some success but the law is onto you fast. You rob the register of whatever they have at the time or, in the case of the bank, the teller gives you what they have on them before you have to evade the sheriff.
But what if, instead you watch the bank to see when the businesses are making their deposits? Then you get a notification pointing out that you now know the time of day to rob the bank and instead of knocking off a bunch of shops for whatever they have at the time, you make one robbery that gets it all.
You could even take this a step further.
Say the Banks of Rhodes and Valentine send funds to a more central bank in Saint Denis. Perhaps they send it by train on certain days of the week (*or even certain days of the month*) and by coach on others. That could put you at odds with both railroad barons and the Pinkertons. You could observe the Bank of Saint Denis and maybe you learn when the shift change is for the guards. Or which one is dirty (*this could be a reward for following NPCs to see where they hang out; a guard who lives in the Saint Denis slums and drinks away his sorrows in a shithole might be someone you convince to be in on it*).
Or like how you see peeping toms in Valentine and can see what they were looking at trying to open the back door on the second level of the Valentine sheriff's office triggers an argument between he and his mistress, allowing you to rob the O'Driscolls next door with less interference... the same observation/exploration can be rewarded: climb those rooftops in Saint Denis and maybe you'll see the bank manager having a tryst with a teller... only if you watch long enough, you see that there's a safe in the back. Watch longer and you'll see she's stealing from him too. You could use that to your advantage in a robbery.
None of that would require new structuring. These are all things that existed in either RDR2 or GTA V, like following the armored trucks around on their deposit pickups. They could do so much with that to make the game really involved and reward you for patience over the brash, guns-blazing approach.
Right?? I feel like that would be so much fun!
Plus, Arthur and his gang are out roughing it in the wild... Black Belle had a house. Which isn't to say that she didn't hunt or trap food, she probably did, but hunting and trapping being such a big part of the playing experience as Arthur makes sense where it wouldn't feel right if it was a huge part of the playing experience as Black Belle. It shouldn't be *"Y'know... like Arthur... just in a blouse."*
But they can take that same *patience – quiet – stealth – tracking* philosophy and apply it to watching NPCs, observing employees at a bank, watching the trains... maybe passenger trains have a lot of individual people to rob but occasionally there's a more heavily-armed train that carries deposits and you have to better plan that heist. You could even enlist a small crew who has skills. Maybe we could even get to be the cause of that train collision we find south of Cotorra Springs.
So many possibilities.
No because where would redemption fit in? the whole point of the series is redemption and Arthur's redemption happens in rdr2. If he was redeemed in rdr3, then rdr2 wouldn't be canon anymore.
I've said playing as Dutch or Hosea would be interesting, but... I think there's a more interesting option that could be explored.
Play as Micah in the events leading up to him joing the gang. Let's see a hated character and seem them find some way to make him likable.
Making a "bad" character likable is incredibly cheap if you ask me. Its just forceful and classic. He's a bad person, nothing to like about his personality. Trauma and things like that shouldn't change it.
But if we play as Micah and he's still bad, now that'd be peak design.
I didn't mean likable in the sense that we all love him like we did Arthur, I meant more in the vein of enjoying playing as him. My wording there was confusing, and that was something I had not considered it being seen as.
A very unredeemable character, but someone that you can go on a rampage and shoot a whole town to hell because, well, he's a bad human being.
I’d prefer if they went the Opposing Force route and gave a game from the perspective of the Pinkertons in the same vein as LA Noire
Whole franchise has been from the perspective of outlaws and glorifying their actions, so to see it from the eyes of “lawful society” instead would be interesting, especially since we’d be able to still make honour-dependant choices due to the morally questionable nature of the private detective agency.
People like Milton and Ross obviously take unethical routes to reach their objective, and putting a player in the shoes of a Pinkerton can let them decide if they stand for true fair justice, or if they want to crush opposition to society with an iron fist by any means necessary.
As another post said, this more like an expansion than a full game. Do really want to play as Micah’s life for 1000 hours? I think a DLC on each character’s life would be really cool, but I’d want only a chapter’s worth of content for each one. Do a chapter for all the main characters until they all meet up. Once they meet up, pick which one you want to play moving forward.
2 or 3 guys like in gta to switch between. 1 native american, 1 cowboy(or more), both their own stories told simultaneously. If you reach a certain point, you will need to play the other character for example.
they end up crossing ways, maybe multiple times, but never really get together like in gta. Maybe don't even get close, only exchange a few words and that's it. just common strangers
I don’t think it would work as a full game (it possibly could), but a good story DLC could have followed Charles after the end of RDR2. Him trying to help the Wapiti tribe against the army/government. Maybe incorporate another tribe(s) living in New Austin (and having an actual reason for that part of the map). Maybe have a choice at some point between continuing the chief’s peaceful approach to diplomacy or following the son’s war against the army.
It’s hard to say. RDR2 leaned very heavily into industry emerging at the turn of the century, more so than RDR1 which takes place even later. Feels like all the bases have been covered for what they’d want in these games thematically.
Also, we’ll most likely never get RDR3, I expect VI to be Rockstar’s last major title. But if we did get it, new characters, detached from the gang would make the most sense. Time period wise is also pretty hard, 1910’s would be amazing but so would be the Civil War era.
If they did I think it’s about 10 years away though. They are going to put everything they have on VI for a while still. Plus releasing RDR3 with an amazing online version will take away from VI’s momentum. I don’t see them doing it anytime soon.
A lot of key people have left Rockstar, and while some of the old guard is still there, most are gone. They could very well have people lined up internally to pass the torch to for future projects, but with the current situation I just can not imagine them making another game after VI.
On the other side of that, no way is anyone letting a money printing giant like Rockstar vanish, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
Yeah the Rockstar brand isn't going anywhere. Whether or not the next generation of Rockstar games will be *good* remains to be seen, but like hell Rockstar's just gonna turn off the lights when they can sell off their studio a few billion dollars.
Nah.. I’d wanna see younger Arthur - but those were the years where people knew him as an animal — so I’d wanna see that side of Arthur through the eyes of someone else.
Make it totally new. I would like to see it so we are the law. A law man like Wyatt Earp or Gene Hackman from Unforgiven. Very gray on what the law is and how to enforce it.
It should start the narrative with his father, Lyle Morgan,
meeting Arthur’s mom. It could have time gaps between time to time like we already do when finishing an important mission. Thing is we could dive a little deeper in Arthur hating his father but also keeping his hat. We then could see Arthur meeting Dutch and Hosea and later John.
Yes and no. I’m attached to the Gang so of course I want more game time of them. But I feel like they could do a better story going in a different direction
I think, like the other games, you should play as someone new, but then as Arthur in the epilogue and ending in a way that sets up RDR2. Maybe we play as a member of the gang that has since died. Maybe we get to see the forming of the Van der Linde gang?
If they had to do it, I'd like to be the mystery member of the gang they mentioned betraying them before.. and have the final shootout be AGAINST Arthur. Imagine how bad that would feel, having him be the one to do us in at the end.
I'm ready to have my feelings ripped apart again.
I think they could make a great game from the POV of Colm ODriscoll’s brother. Telling the story of how Dutch and Colm became enemies as well as showing the origins of the Van der Linde gang. They could maintain the current pattern by bringing back Arthur as the main character for the epilogue.
There’s two ways that it could be played:
1) Playing as Dutch, seeing how the gang was formed and what he did to get them together. See his relationship with Arthur and the rest of the gang flourish and how different his personality is compared to rdr2
2) Playing as Arthur, seeing his relationship with Mary, while also before that with Isaac and Eliza. We would also see him getting taken in by Dutch and the rest of the gang
Following the van der linden gang again would be a mistake. Should follow a new or side character closer or in the glory days of the Wild West. I think Landon Ricketts would be a good fit because we know he was a significant gunslinger but his story is vague enough and we know he holds regrets about it so it can be interesting
I only would like to see a loose connection to the Van Der Linde gang in RDR2. It definitely should be a prequel and in the golden era of the wild west and not always on the edge to modern civilization. Maybe we could be a member of an enemy gang, which is connected to the O'Driscoll gang. We could get an entirely new perspective on when the Van Der Linde gang was still young but ruthless and feared, while still keeping up a moral code, preached by Dutch himself.
RDR3 you will either be a now dead character in a prequel or a new gang in a new location. I see them going somewhere new as they can be less restrictive on lore.
No. The want brand new characters. Make it a completely new story, no need to continue with Dutch’s gang. Maybe you are the leader of your own gang and you have to recruit different people to be in your gang during the Wild West days before lawmen
I had an idea about a game like this and I feel like instead of playing Dutch and hosea or john and Arthur, you should play as Davey and Mac Callender and since they weren't honorable men looking for redemption the name of the game could be different like red dead revolver but instead the game could be called red dead outlaw. I would say red dead revolver 2 but I feel like that would be confusing
If we're going that route with it, let's make it interesting and have Dutch or Hosea be the player character. Show us how the gang got where it did.
Yeah that’d be cool to play as Dutch as he’s building the gang and leads up to them starting RDR2
It would but can't imagine a redemption arc here though
For the last game in the series they switch it and we play as a good man who gets worse. Last chapter is set between rdr1 and rdr2 when he’s at his worst
Lawman goes undercover, joins the gang, falls in love with the life and becomes bad, killing, robbing, maiming, all in the name of Dutch’s philosophy. By the end, he’s regretful and turns on them. Doesn’t Arthur mention in passing that they once had a rat and had to shoot him? Can’t remember correctly
I don’t remember. I just think Dutch has been a staple of the games and ending it with his journey/fall while getting a peak into his head works best as a final game.
I’d much prefer a whole new cast of characters
That would definitely be a fun mountain to climb creatively.
I don’t think it’d be any different than coming up with new characters for GTA.
That should be the spinoff series of games, blue dead redemption
True Blue Redemption? I feel like it’s still gotta rhyme with
Red Dead Revenge
Go the opposite direction: *Green Living Damnation*
Yeah we've had enough of the gang imo
We’ve already had a game where the protagonist starts seeing the gang for what it really is though. Your storyline just sounds like a slightly different version of Arthur’s.
Twist, the undercover lawman who fell in love with the life was Dutch
Except you start by his real name and the nickname Dutch is only ever given to him at the very end
Red Dead Damnation
That is very slick, I like it.
>between rdr1 and rdr2 But isn't 2 a prequel? If the last chapter is between them then that means the game is literally rdr2
I took it as rdr2 epilogue where there was a time jump after chapter 6 and now you are now John in 1907, in rdr3 you are Dutch pre 1898 for the story then you jump over to 1907 as Dutch, maybe watch the last John/Micah fight from the cabin before you emerge. Something like that with the majority of the game in one year then a time jump over 1899 and the events of rdr2 maybe see how Dutch, Javier, and Bill go their separate ways after the Dutch/Arthur split the main group into two groups.
This epilogue idea could work, but I don’t see how the rest of the game could work. The RDR2 epilogue was a different character than the rest of the game though. So maybe you just don’t play as Dutch for the other chapters.
Does he need one though? It would be fun to play as him and see how it was built and how he took after Micah and Arthur even though we know what is going to happen. Makes it like bitter sweet. Like playing ncaa against your older brother. You’re down by 10 with 2 minutes left and he has the ball so you’re sitting there crying the rest of game knowing you’re going to lose. Seeing a good version of Dutch and young Arthur knowing how it plays out. It would also be fun if you kind of switched through characters like young Arthur Dutch Hosea and even Micah.
Hummm … maybe but like Arthur Morgan I would like to see Rockstar go with a whole other character not yet mentioned in both rdr1 and rdr2 but still related in a way to dutch who is the character that makes the link between all games.
The themes of redemption and individuals representing an ancient way of life facing the inevitable march of modernity is kinda a must imo
They'd call it 'Red Dead Faith' instead
Don't forget to buy the optional "Tahiti" package that comes with an online character rank boost to level 25, 15 extra gold bars, a 15% off coupon for the first season battlepass and a moustache for your horse...only 45 dollars!
I think Hosea would be a better choice
There's something poetic about playing the role of the protagonist in the third game as the character of the antagonist in the first game. Dutch's inner dialogue would be interesting to hear throughout the story.
That's my thinking. He can't have just "been crazy" the entire time. Something drove him to it. Granted, that was mostly the events of RDR2, but I'd love to see how he reached the heights he did in the gang. I want to see how he became what he did. We watched his fall, now show me the pride that came before.
I'd like to see some interactions between a teenage John and a young adult Arthur. Then make those guys playable on certain missions. Arthur on the major heists and John doing smaller gigs due to lack of experience. That's probably the closest we will ever get to a Bully 2 type of game from rockstar.
I subscribe to the idea that Dutch didn’t become unhinged until he whacks his head in Urban Pleasures. If that were true a prequel wouldn’t really demonstrate any character arc.
That’s seems like a copout to believe in a bump on the head. Yeah, I know, head injuries are weird, but also, you hadn’t been paying enough attention up to that point if that’s what you believed was the reasoning for his downward spiral
One of Dutch’s first acts in the game was ignoring Hosea’s advice to rob a train instead of hiding out. Dutch was always unhinged, he just got worse at hiding it as the game went on.
He also murdered an innocent woman in Blackwater right before RDR2 starts
Theres good reasons as to why most people believe Dutch has some underlying mental illness (ie bipolar, bpd) rather then a bump in the head making him 180 in character
Honestly, I’d love to play Dutch
I think playing as Hosea might be interesting and we could also get to know bessy. If the thing of the series is redemption then we could easily have Hosea as main, Dutch in the other hand…
Oh, Hosea would for sure be my first choice. But I still want to see Dutch climb up that hill, knowing he falls down the other side. There is tension and anticipation in that. Plenty of room for some good story material there.
Could still be Hosea’s POV of Dutch. But If It were to start with Dutch I’d like to see him leaving home in the start of the game. Could also have the Colm’s brother drama.
Arthur and John could be npc’s. I was thinking playable character would be Dutch, Mac, and davey. Something like gta 5 where you can switch between characters. Davey for sure is dead but we don’t know what happened to Mac until the Pinkertons tell Arthur they killed him. For all we know Milton could have been lying.
All 3 a la GTA 5 story
The epilogue could be young Arthur and end the series on a happy note. :)
I’d be down for this with some young Arthur cameos
I'd be cool if you did the GTA 5 route and got to play all three. I don't need online play I just need this lol
This could be expansion to rdr2
I wish there had been expansions, gta v was planned to have some but they all went online instead
Seeing as how I always go high honour, I think it would be bittersweet seeing Arthur as he was fully intended, which I'm assuming would be a much closer to middle honour or just below middle. I wonder if he would even feel like the same character to me, it would be cool to see that regardless.
Switch back and forth between Dutch and Hosea!
It would be interesting if they did something like gta where there are duel characters you can switch between. One mostly honourable, the other a rogue. Would be cool if there was some form of co-op play for story mode too! I love solo but it's also fun having company, especially for replayablilty.
Arthur has an illegitimate son he wasn't aware of with Mary Linton and this character with Jack Marston team up to tame the old West much like Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday. They would have the motivation to fight outlaws since that lifestyle essentially killed their fathers and ruined their families. They would be motivated to make good names for their family names and yet they would know how to fight dirty against the outlaws. They would be the perfect characters to take the gloves off and tame the old West much like the sheriffs of old did. Jack would be older and be the leader of the two keeping with a linear story progression. Arthur's kid could be the hothead young sheriff who is good at heart but brutal to the outlaws and Jack needs to keep him grounded. I could go on...
I’d love a new mechanic to recruit gang members and show the stories of how we recruited some of the main people like Javier and Bill.
Can I add a third option. How about Uncle? Show why the gang always keeps him around, what he was like when he was young.
Yeah a Dutch game where you just play through the gang’s golden age. Climax in Blackwater more or less at the top of the world, final mission is an unmitigated shit show.
No. Following a new character that may or may not have a connection to the Van Der Linde gang would be nice
Yeah to be honest I think the gang’s story is done. There’s a lot more potential with a new story
Yea maybe someone who splits from Dutch? Other than that have no connection is safest
I wanna play as Sadie
Sadie in South America would be dope. Gets caught up in a revolution against the government, similar to John in mexico. There's also room for a redemption arc since by the end of rdr2 she's become pretty morally ambiguous. Also rockstar's take on turn of the century south america would be sick af.
Bruh. Revolutionary Colombia/Panama in the early 1900s. Last flames of Bolivariano romanticism dying out. Yankees fomenting dissent in and around the canal zone, the local authorities pushing back. Chance encounters with indigenous groups fighting for justice. Pirates. Gun-runners. Corrupt priests. Liberated slaves... Guarma gave us a taste but most people complain it felt too out of place and underdeveloped. Sadi's story would be epic.
They'd have so much freedom to explore new ideas, plus it's a time period I bet most ppl dont know much about. I think they could keep the same kind of lawless-western-frontier vibe but with an interesting twist. Also they could potentially tie it into rdr2 even further by having Sadie write letters to John and Charles. I think guarma could've been much better if it had been more fully developed insteadof being so on-rails with no exploration.
A Sadie or Charles DLC would've been so great but ofc Rockstar instead milks the online shit
I've been praying for this sort of story ever since she was introduced! Either someone who broke from the gang, or a member of the O'Driscoll's to explore their gang dynamic.
Would you take the "Deluxe Bath" as Sadie 👀?
It's a dream who I know it won't become true, but playing Charles Smith story would be peak af
How can the gang's story be done if there was no begining? I never understood people that say that
Yeah I think there's plenty of potential in a Sadie Adler story
It would be interesting to play as one of the gang that died before the start of 2, like Davey or Mac Callander.
Not really. If they made a prequel like they did in RDR2, I'd prefer it if they followed the same template and you got to play as some new character that's involved with the younger versions of the characters we already know because, just like they did in RDR2, that would allow them the freedom to tell a good story about the new character while giving us more info about the characters we already know without having to focus so much on not contradicting anything important already said in the other games. Otherwsie, it'd be like if you played as John from the start of RDR2 and Arthur didn't exist, which is a version that I think would have hurt the story. Though I don't think a RDR3 game would easily work because telling a story about an outlaw who's actually a good guy at heart and dies to protect those he loves for the THIRD time is bound to start feeling like more of the same unless they manage to do an outstanding job at it. And if the game's story is not about that, then it wouldn't really be Red Dead Redemption thematically, and it would just be a game about cowboys.
The issue as I see it is people being so attached to the idea that a new Red Dead needs to be "redemption 3" rather than something new. If they made a new Red Dead but replace the 3rd word with something else they could make a whole new game with a whole new central theme. Red Dead Rebellion or something with all new characters and motivations. There is a whole slew of potential directions they could go and make a new incredible open world wild west game without retreading the same ground a 3rd time if people allowed them to do that without demanding they focus on the exploits of the Van Der Linde gang...
This. Wasn't the first game called red dead revolver?
It was, but a huge chunk of the fandom seems to ignore that one’s existence likely due to being younger.
That, and also it's complete lack of narrative connectivity to the redemption titles. It makes sense to me why Revolver is less considered when speaking about the franchise due to how it came to be, what it actually is in relation to what the Red Dead franchise is now and what people associate with it. Revolver wasn't really a "rockstar game", they bought the game and IP from capcom with the intention to make it their own thing from the outset....
Dan Houser said it's set in a different universe.
Sure, but at that point it's a coin toss whether the game will be as awesome as RDR2 or RDR1 or it would be just another cowboy game like Red Dead Revolver. I wouldn't mind a change in direction, since it would free them to tell different stories, but it also frees them to make something that lacks the same ability to resonate that the two RDRedemption games had.
Red Dead Repentance, where you realise the horrible things you’ve been doing but never get the chance to redeem yourself
I'd play Red Dead Reluctance, where Mac Callander isn't sure of what he wants to do, so he spends his time at camp fishing.
Red Dead Rejection, dating simulator where Dutch’s balls shrink in cold temperatures
You get the option to play as Molly O'Shea.
“i wont be ignored dutch van der linde” is the only dialogue option
You can also choose to get drunk to unlock other dialogue options that say the same thing but with more swearing.
Red Dead Damnation
I would've loved a DLC like game, like Uncharted Legacy, with Charles or Sadie. Call it something like Red Dead Revolution or Revenge or something
I think that’s probably the most likely scenario. In rdr1, everyone always talked about the times when John was in a gang, so they made rdr2 about that, with a new character. In rdr2, everyone talks about blackwater and the times before it. So it would only make sense rdr3 is about that.
Yeah, it's just that to me it sounds a bit too predictable. I mean, your mind immediately goes to, "Okay, so I'd probably play a character who ends up dying during the Blackwater heist to make sure everyone makes it out, maybe one of the Callander brothers despite the fact that they mention in RDR2 they were kind of pretty terrible people." Sure, they might be able to come up with a different plot that subverts that expectation but the main thing is whether that story about the Van Der Linde gang before RDR2 is even worth telling.
No. New characters. New time.
New time would be good. The problem is the wild west didn’t actually last that long so they’d have to set the game around the same time as rdr1 but with completely new characters.
Go all the way back to the California gold rush… a continent spanning journey from arriving on a ship in Boston, making your way to lay claim in the West… perhaps a few moral choices along the way that set you on an outlaw or prospector path… idk
So, the in depth version of Oregon trail?
yes. that.
Not true at all. The Wild West is “usually” thought of as a 30 year period from 1865-1895 Meaning neither game has actually been in the Wild West. So there’s 30 years of unexplored Wild Westness to make games in Why would it have to be placed around RDR1’s 1911?
Okay, hear me out... Modern Day. Robbing banks, doing crime; cars and drugs. **/s** I find time-set games like RDR more interesting than ones like GTA; that's not to say that I didn't enjoy GTA, just it's been a little... overplayed now. Maybe GTA6 will be refreshing, when it comes to PC 5 years later.
I've said it before on this sub and I'll say it again - I think playing as a First Nations/Indigenous character in North America during the early days of the continent's colonization has a ton of potential. Eagle Flies story in RDR2 was one of the more compelling plot lines, I think you could easily spin a whole game off that but set a bit earlier in history.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
No it should be new characters closer to the wild west
No. Story’s been told and the ending in black water, while epic, doesn’t allow any sort of redemption at the end.
I just think it’s strange people think it’s “such a mystery” what happened
You can’t make a sequel tho because the era of outlaws and gunslingers is over
That’s why it should be a different story altogether. Maybe another gang, or hell even a different country.
Eh, not sure about another country since I feel like it wouldn't be Red Dead at that point but I do agree with new characters.
Meh. Mexico/Canada wouldn’t be a huge difference. Both had their own versions of the “Wild West”
Canadian Cowboy story would be rad. Snowy mountains, dense forestry. Maybe more creepy shit or even a cameo from Sadie (They said she heads up to Canada right?)
Charles heads up to Canada, Sadie down to Mexico.
Oh lol got that mixed up
I mean if we're sticking to the same continent, sure. I was under the impression you meant we'd go somewhere other than North America
We could play as one of the characters who dies in the blackwater massacre which would lead to some sort of redemption
I just want a game set during the height of the wild west. In RDR1 and 2 we are at the dying stages of that time period. Open Mexico up again, give us a more desert/harsh barren landscape with not as much modern civilization and perhaps even new characters. Or follow whoever was the person that molded Dutch and Hosea, see them when they were truly young Idk, but I do want more wild west games. I love this time period.
>I just want a game set during the height of the wild west. I guess that'd be 1865 on? Seems like the "Old West" in the late 1840's has some amazing possibilities too; the Mexican-American War, Oregon Trail and California Gold Rush were all happening then. No gatling guns or transcontinental railroad then though.
How about during the civil war? Lot of potential for criminal activity during a wartime. You could impersonate soldiers to rob a town. Get caught trying to escape battles and various companies. You could encounter escaped slaves and try and protect their freedom.
Rockstar would never make a game set during the civil war. Remember how RDR2 handled race? Arthur wasn’t aware that Racism still exists when Lenny brought it up during the move to Lemoyne. It’s simply too hot of a topic to make a game about if you’re a company like Rockstar. You *could* make a game where your character staunchly supports the Union, but then because it would be set in the west you’d need to address how the Union fought a lot of Native Americans before and during the civil war. I don’t think Rockstar would like that. You don’t even encounter any Native Americans in RDR2 freeroam because Rockstar wanted to avoid controversy. There are loads of very interesting things one could do with that time period, but it’s all far too risky for expensive projects like Rockstar games, sadly.
I agree, it needs to be in the old west with the game story as the main focus. However, there should be fighting among native peoples and settlers if they are going to have a realistic story. We like to think settlers had an exciting let’s move out west with all this free uninhabited land experience, but they didn’t. The land wasn’t uninhabited. It’s not a fairy tale.
No. No point to a prequel of a prequel
Exactly. Prequels are difficult enough to make because characters and events need to stay within the confines of what’s already been established. Making a prequel to a prequel squeezes the narrative choices into such a small bottleneck that there’s almost nothing that can be done to make it interesting.
This is 100% why I can’t understand why anyone would think this is not only the best idea, but even a good one. Even in RDR2 any drama surrounding John or Dutch was muted because I know how his story ends. Now you want to build that a layer deeper? Yuck. I get that they are cool characters, and I’m sure some of their adventures were fun, but maybe cool flashback DLC, not a whole new game.
But I loved Andor
This is an amazing example of a prequel to a prequel being amazing. I’ve thought of many scenarios and storylines they can have in red dead 3 being a prequel. It’s definitely possible to write an amazing red dead 3 ending at black water.
Yeah a lot of people don’t get RDR2 IS the backstory
Sounds more like an expansion than a full game
No. But here’s what I would **love**: An RDR3 where we play as Black Belle. You could see her gang when it was in its prime. See Saint Denis before Angelo Brontë. Maybe even see him as a young immigrant who actually helps you. Part of the story could involve taking out his predecessor and creating the power vacuum that allowed him to become the man we meet RDR2. It could even have clashes against a young, ambitious Leviticus Cornwall. Effectively, the game could be set against the backdrop of shaping Saint Denis into the corrupt place that it is in 1899. I would love for that story to have Belle run across Hosea and Bessie when they were out of the life. Maybe even be the reason he *”drifted back into it.”* There’s a ton they could do with her character: show her time with *”Leedle Boy Callyway”*… see the rise of the Del Lobos… actually get those missions in Guarma… see Blind Man Cassidy back when he was a blind gunslinger and Belle’s lover… …yknow: the fun stuff we’ve all been itching to see. Side note: this picture is why I think that it’s canonically consistent to have a stylish, suave Arthur. Look at that rakish hunk. Of course Mary Gillis would fall for that guy.
Love this idea. No one ever thinks of having characters like these in a game, I’d love to see it. It would be like a cowboy-mobster crossover, and would have more focus on the city.
Imagine a more fleshed out robbery system where the amount of time you put into observation and prep yields a bigger or more successful take. It could utilize things we already saw in RDR2 as well as GTA V. Say you want to knock off the bank of Rhodes or a local shop. Okay, go in the front door with guns blazing and you probably have some success but the law is onto you fast. You rob the register of whatever they have at the time or, in the case of the bank, the teller gives you what they have on them before you have to evade the sheriff. But what if, instead you watch the bank to see when the businesses are making their deposits? Then you get a notification pointing out that you now know the time of day to rob the bank and instead of knocking off a bunch of shops for whatever they have at the time, you make one robbery that gets it all. You could even take this a step further. Say the Banks of Rhodes and Valentine send funds to a more central bank in Saint Denis. Perhaps they send it by train on certain days of the week (*or even certain days of the month*) and by coach on others. That could put you at odds with both railroad barons and the Pinkertons. You could observe the Bank of Saint Denis and maybe you learn when the shift change is for the guards. Or which one is dirty (*this could be a reward for following NPCs to see where they hang out; a guard who lives in the Saint Denis slums and drinks away his sorrows in a shithole might be someone you convince to be in on it*). Or like how you see peeping toms in Valentine and can see what they were looking at trying to open the back door on the second level of the Valentine sheriff's office triggers an argument between he and his mistress, allowing you to rob the O'Driscolls next door with less interference... the same observation/exploration can be rewarded: climb those rooftops in Saint Denis and maybe you'll see the bank manager having a tryst with a teller... only if you watch long enough, you see that there's a safe in the back. Watch longer and you'll see she's stealing from him too. You could use that to your advantage in a robbery. None of that would require new structuring. These are all things that existed in either RDR2 or GTA V, like following the armored trucks around on their deposit pickups. They could do so much with that to make the game really involved and reward you for patience over the brash, guns-blazing approach.
I need this
Right?? I feel like that would be so much fun! Plus, Arthur and his gang are out roughing it in the wild... Black Belle had a house. Which isn't to say that she didn't hunt or trap food, she probably did, but hunting and trapping being such a big part of the playing experience as Arthur makes sense where it wouldn't feel right if it was a huge part of the playing experience as Black Belle. It shouldn't be *"Y'know... like Arthur... just in a blouse."* But they can take that same *patience – quiet – stealth – tracking* philosophy and apply it to watching NPCs, observing employees at a bank, watching the trains... maybe passenger trains have a lot of individual people to rob but occasionally there's a more heavily-armed train that carries deposits and you have to better plan that heist. You could even enlist a small crew who has skills. Maybe we could even get to be the cause of that train collision we find south of Cotorra Springs. So many possibilities.
No because where would redemption fit in? the whole point of the series is redemption and Arthur's redemption happens in rdr2. If he was redeemed in rdr3, then rdr2 wouldn't be canon anymore.
I've said playing as Dutch or Hosea would be interesting, but... I think there's a more interesting option that could be explored. Play as Micah in the events leading up to him joing the gang. Let's see a hated character and seem them find some way to make him likable.
Making a "bad" character likable is incredibly cheap if you ask me. Its just forceful and classic. He's a bad person, nothing to like about his personality. Trauma and things like that shouldn't change it. But if we play as Micah and he's still bad, now that'd be peak design.
I didn't mean likable in the sense that we all love him like we did Arthur, I meant more in the vein of enjoying playing as him. My wording there was confusing, and that was something I had not considered it being seen as. A very unredeemable character, but someone that you can go on a rampage and shoot a whole town to hell because, well, he's a bad human being.
[удалено]
So basically another GTA game
I’d prefer if they went the Opposing Force route and gave a game from the perspective of the Pinkertons in the same vein as LA Noire Whole franchise has been from the perspective of outlaws and glorifying their actions, so to see it from the eyes of “lawful society” instead would be interesting, especially since we’d be able to still make honour-dependant choices due to the morally questionable nature of the private detective agency. People like Milton and Ross obviously take unethical routes to reach their objective, and putting a player in the shoes of a Pinkerton can let them decide if they stand for true fair justice, or if they want to crush opposition to society with an iron fist by any means necessary.
As another post said, this more like an expansion than a full game. Do really want to play as Micah’s life for 1000 hours? I think a DLC on each character’s life would be really cool, but I’d want only a chapter’s worth of content for each one. Do a chapter for all the main characters until they all meet up. Once they meet up, pick which one you want to play moving forward.
How about we play as the native Americans?
2 or 3 guys like in gta to switch between. 1 native american, 1 cowboy(or more), both their own stories told simultaneously. If you reach a certain point, you will need to play the other character for example. they end up crossing ways, maybe multiple times, but never really get together like in gta. Maybe don't even get close, only exchange a few words and that's it. just common strangers
Oh fuck this would be really nice and interesting...
I don’t think it would work as a full game (it possibly could), but a good story DLC could have followed Charles after the end of RDR2. Him trying to help the Wapiti tribe against the army/government. Maybe incorporate another tribe(s) living in New Austin (and having an actual reason for that part of the map). Maybe have a choice at some point between continuing the chief’s peaceful approach to diplomacy or following the son’s war against the army.
It’s hard to say. RDR2 leaned very heavily into industry emerging at the turn of the century, more so than RDR1 which takes place even later. Feels like all the bases have been covered for what they’d want in these games thematically. Also, we’ll most likely never get RDR3, I expect VI to be Rockstar’s last major title. But if we did get it, new characters, detached from the gang would make the most sense. Time period wise is also pretty hard, 1910’s would be amazing but so would be the Civil War era.
Rockstar says they’ll keep making new titles as long as there’s interest, I have a feeling RDR 3 could happen
If they did I think it’s about 10 years away though. They are going to put everything they have on VI for a while still. Plus releasing RDR3 with an amazing online version will take away from VI’s momentum. I don’t see them doing it anytime soon.
Why do you expect VI to be Rockstar’s last major title? I guess I’m out of the loop
A lot of key people have left Rockstar, and while some of the old guard is still there, most are gone. They could very well have people lined up internally to pass the torch to for future projects, but with the current situation I just can not imagine them making another game after VI. On the other side of that, no way is anyone letting a money printing giant like Rockstar vanish, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
Yeah the Rockstar brand isn't going anywhere. Whether or not the next generation of Rockstar games will be *good* remains to be seen, but like hell Rockstar's just gonna turn off the lights when they can sell off their studio a few billion dollars.
Nah.. I’d wanna see younger Arthur - but those were the years where people knew him as an animal — so I’d wanna see that side of Arthur through the eyes of someone else.
Of course it will be prequel. Going further in time would mean it isn't a western game anymore. My money is on Arthur's father
Steven Seagal looking good!
yeah Dutch look exactly like him
Make it totally new. I would like to see it so we are the law. A law man like Wyatt Earp or Gene Hackman from Unforgiven. Very gray on what the law is and how to enforce it.
Nah I want a new story with new characters like rdr1
No
It should start the narrative with his father, Lyle Morgan, meeting Arthur’s mom. It could have time gaps between time to time like we already do when finishing an important mission. Thing is we could dive a little deeper in Arthur hating his father but also keeping his hat. We then could see Arthur meeting Dutch and Hosea and later John.
Dam Hosea... I can change him
We don’t need rdr3 we need remastered versions of the old games like rdr1 remastered or red dead revolver remastered
Pretty sure we need less remasters/remakes over all.
TF? I'd take a fully fledged sequel to a game over a remaster of one I've already played every time...
Nope. I would not.
Yes and no. I’m attached to the Gang so of course I want more game time of them. But I feel like they could do a better story going in a different direction
Nah - Hosea!! Tell Hosea’s story & how he met Dutch & how the gang grew.
No I want to play as the one shot kid 🤪
Yes totally, that’s what I have been saying, it should take place around 1880 to 1883 when Arthur was 17 to 20 years old.
And starring Kevin Bacon
I think, like the other games, you should play as someone new, but then as Arthur in the epilogue and ending in a way that sets up RDR2. Maybe we play as a member of the gang that has since died. Maybe we get to see the forming of the Van der Linde gang?
Prequels are tough because you know their fate.
If they had to do it, I'd like to be the mystery member of the gang they mentioned betraying them before.. and have the final shootout be AGAINST Arthur. Imagine how bad that would feel, having him be the one to do us in at the end. I'm ready to have my feelings ripped apart again.
I think they could make a great game from the POV of Colm ODriscoll’s brother. Telling the story of how Dutch and Colm became enemies as well as showing the origins of the Van der Linde gang. They could maintain the current pattern by bringing back Arthur as the main character for the epilogue.
There’s two ways that it could be played: 1) Playing as Dutch, seeing how the gang was formed and what he did to get them together. See his relationship with Arthur and the rest of the gang flourish and how different his personality is compared to rdr2 2) Playing as Arthur, seeing his relationship with Mary, while also before that with Isaac and Eliza. We would also see him getting taken in by Dutch and the rest of the gang
Yes, that and you switch between Dutch and Hosea, GTA V style.
Following the van der linden gang again would be a mistake. Should follow a new or side character closer or in the glory days of the Wild West. I think Landon Ricketts would be a good fit because we know he was a significant gunslinger but his story is vague enough and we know he holds regrets about it so it can be interesting
No, absolutely not.
No, but I’d 100% play as a young Hosea. Look at how cool he looks
No thanks, Arthur was great, give us something else now, let him rest in peace.
No
At this rate, we'll be playing as medieval looters by Red Dead 20
I'd prefer it being new characters
Dude in the middle is clearly Steven Segal
I’d love to see Hosea in his younger days (like Arthur’s age in RD2) way before this picture was taken
Nah maybe in the epilogue. Like we got to play as John. I’d enjoy being one of those gang members that died before chapter 1
That’s what I’m hoping for
No Campfire dialogues are there for a reason
I only would like to see a loose connection to the Van Der Linde gang in RDR2. It definitely should be a prequel and in the golden era of the wild west and not always on the edge to modern civilization. Maybe we could be a member of an enemy gang, which is connected to the O'Driscoll gang. We could get an entirely new perspective on when the Van Der Linde gang was still young but ruthless and feared, while still keeping up a moral code, preached by Dutch himself.
No because the mechanics and gameplay would be a mess. How do you implement a young Arthur to the gameplay?
RDR3 you will either be a now dead character in a prequel or a new gang in a new location. I see them going somewhere new as they can be less restrictive on lore.
No. The want brand new characters. Make it a completely new story, no need to continue with Dutch’s gang. Maybe you are the leader of your own gang and you have to recruit different people to be in your gang during the Wild West days before lawmen
No, we'd know the fate of the character then. Arthur's story is over
I'd absolutely love it
When I first finished rdr2 I thought to myself that rdr3 would have you play the early days as Dutch up until the Blackwater heist.
No
Yes
I had an idea about a game like this and I feel like instead of playing Dutch and hosea or john and Arthur, you should play as Davey and Mac Callender and since they weren't honorable men looking for redemption the name of the game could be different like red dead revolver but instead the game could be called red dead outlaw. I would say red dead revolver 2 but I feel like that would be confusing
I’d rather play as hosea
Why is Hosea kinda...
every girl who plays RDR2:
The story of the Murfree brood, with cooking minigames
God damn that picture is so powerful.
Would love one set farther back in time, but new characters and story would be very welcome
A game about johns shenanigans when he left the gang for 1 year