Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Contract
      2. Updates
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Blood Money
      2. Frontier Pursuits
      3. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      4. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

      1. Bugs*
      2. St. Andrews Cathedral
    2. GTA VI

    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Classic GTA SA
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Classic GTA VC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Classic GTA III
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

Red Dead Redemption 2: Discussion & Speculation (Part 1)


Spider-Vice
 Share

Recommended Posts

< Any chance she could be Cali Moore? I couldn't find a showreel to compare voices but their noses look similar to me.

 

I asked a few pages back if anybody recognized the accent in the trailer because Cali Moore is from Tennessee(?), but then I found

that doesn't really sound anything like the trailer and I wasn't so sure.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

will the multiplayer be revolutionary?

it's definitely something you can discuss here, not in this thread.

  • Like 1

image.pngut_dog.png   image.png

let your hopes and dreams turn into burning fire!

GTANet | Red Dead Network | kifflom 

black lives matter | stop Asian hate | trans lives = human lives

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm calling BS on yall saying Arthur is in his 30s

 

he looks like he is in his 40s

 

red_dead_redemption_2_screencap_08_shake

If your in your 20's he looks like he's in his 40's

If your in your 40's he looks like he's in his 20's

 

So on so forth...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MostWantedMVP

Arthur Morgan: Early 40's

 

Dutch van der Linde: Early 40's

 

Bill Williamson: Late 30's

 

Javier Esquela: Late 30's

 

John Marston: Early 20's

Edited by MostWantedMVP
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Striker_Blitz

Arthur Morgan: Early 40's

 

Dutch van der Linde: Early 40's

 

Bill Williamson: Late 30's

 

Javier Esquela: Late 30's

 

John Marston: Early 20's

 

Dutch looks more like late 40s early 50s to me

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rockstar Vienna

Dutch van der Linde: Early 40's

 

Bill Williamson: Late 30's

 

John Marston: Early 20's

Not quite i guess. In 1911...

 

Dutch was 53

Bill was 45

John was 38

 

So let's assume RDR2's set in 1898 then...

 

Dutch was 40

Bill was 32

John was 25

 

That being said... I don't think that the RDR2 will be set before 1895. No way that Dutch is younger than 37 in this trailer.

Edited by Rockstar Vienna
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MostWantedMVP

1896.

 

15 years prior to the events of Red Dead Redemption.

 

Dutch: 38 (same age as John in the first game)

 

Bill: 30

 

John: 23

 

 

So we're looking at the 1890s not any earlier unless Rockstar wants to mess with the lore which I think they won't do unless they want make us rage LOL

Edited by MostWantedMVP
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate to be a downer on a thread like this but I have to ask: was anyone else ultimately disappointed to see just how much of a prequel RDR 2 is gonna be. I know it's been on the cards since the reveal last year but having seen the trailer as well as Rockstar's description of this being "the story of outlaw Arthur Morgan and the Van der Linde gang", I can't help but sense a lack of inspiration around this game. I mean (as I've said before) we already know an awful lot about the story of the "Van der Linde gang"; it was frequently discussed throughout RDR, so much so that you can go on RDR wiki and read a pretty comprehensive timeline and description of what happened. And in the end, it all served mainly as backstory to provide context to the much more compelling story of how the gangmembers came to their end in RDR.

 

I admit that I'm not a huge fan of prequels anyway but I think that, when they do work, they work best when telling a backstory that was beforehand mainly a mystery. Look, for example, at 'Better Call Saul' (the first season at least), which focused on the stories of characters from Breaking Bad that we knew the least/barely anything about backstory-wise. To me that worked and made for a compelling prequel because the writers had more leeway to create scenarios that weren't predetermined and so were more interesting because of that creative freedom. That's why I say "lack of inspiration"; it seems that they wanted a story that basically would write itself and mainly allow them to fit a load of action set-pieces around (in much the same way as GTA V was written). It's like we've been robbed of the "what" from the story; by this I mean we already know what is going to happen and all there is left to find out is "how" it happens, which is essentially what the speculation here is revolving around. Hell, the worst thing for me about that leak that got brought back up wasn't necessarily the spoilers themselves; it was that I'd actually already guessed that that's what would happen after having seen the trailer.

 

I know this is a game first and foremost, and my disappointment is alleviated somewhat by knowing that there are many aspects (the world, the systems, the physics) that make Rockstar's games what they are. It's just that it will be 8 years next Spring since Red Dead Redemption and to think that it's taken them all those years just to make a game set in barely any different a time period in the West's history and focusing on characters to whom we either already know what will happen or can make very informed guesses at. It's just disappointing what with RDR having been so unique in regards to its story, setting and themes. It really also makes you wonder how long this game has been in development hell like that leaker suggested and when they initially planned to release it; I can't imagine they themselves would have envisaged taking so long just to produce a prequel.

 

Again, apologies for being a bit of a downer!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

J.Dillinger Blackheart

 

I'm calling BS on yall saying Arthur is in his 30s

 

he looks like he is in his 40s

 

red_dead_redemption_2_screencap_08_shake

If your in your 20's he looks like he's in his 40's

If your in your 40's he looks like he's in his 20's

 

So on so forth...

 

The sheer level of detail in this shot alone is f*ckin astonishing! The wear and tear in the leather hat, his dirty ass hands, the stains and rips in his shirt. The scars on his chin i believe will have something to do with backstory.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MostWantedMVP

The sheer level of detail in this shot alone is f*ckin astonishing! The wear and tear in the leather hat, his dirty ass hands, the stains and rips in his shirt. The scars on his chin i believe will have something to do with backstory.

 

A huge step up from the first game.

 

Can't wait to see some gameplay in action.

Edited by MostWantedMVP
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LegacyKillaHD

 

Dutch van der Linde: Early 40's

 

Bill Williamson: Late 30's

 

John Marston: Early 20's

Not quite i guess. In 1911...

 

Dutch was 53

Bill was 45

John was 38

 

So let's assume RDR2's set in 1898 then...

 

Dutch was 40

Bill was 32

John was 25

 

That being said... I don't think that the RDR2 will be set before 1895. No way that Dutch is younger than 37 in this trailer.

 

Just saying but that leak with Arthur did mention a little Jack who was born in 1895, my guess is sometime from 1899 to 1906 although certainly could be time jumps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HandSoap2811

 

The sheer level of detail in this shot alone is f*ckin astonishing! The wear and tear in the leather hat, his dirty ass hands, the stains and rips in his shirt. The scars on his chin i believe will have something to do with backstory.

A huge step up from the first game.

 

Can't wait to see some gameplay in action.

 

it will be glorious

 

 

 

 

 

Dutch van der Linde: Early 40's

 

Bill Williamson: Late 30's

 

John Marston: Early 20's

Not quite i guess. In 1911...

 

Dutch was 53

Bill was 45

John was 38

 

So let's assume RDR2's set in 1898 then...

 

Dutch was 40

Bill was 32

John was 25

 

That being said... I don't think that the RDR2 will be set before 1895. No way that Dutch is younger than 37 in this trailer.

 

Just saying but that leak with Arthur did mention a little Jack who was born in 1895, my guess is sometime from 1899 to 1906 although certainly could be time jumps

 

the dude who leaked it is also my dad Edited by Spider-Vice
edited double quote
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate to be a downer on a thread like this but I have to ask: was anyone else ultimately disappointed to see just how much of a prequel RDR 2 is gonna be. I know it's been on the cards since the reveal last year but having seen the trailer as well as Rockstar's description of this being "the story of outlaw Arthur Morgan and the Van der Linde gang", I can't help but sense a lack of inspiration around this game. I mean (as I've said before) we already know an awful lot about the story of the "Van der Linde gang"; it was frequently discussed throughout RDR, so much so that you can go on RDR wiki and read a pretty comprehensive timeline and description of what happened. And in the end, it all served mainly as backstory to provide context to the much more compelling story of how the gangmembers came to their end in RDR.

 

I admit that I'm not a huge fan of prequels anyway but I think that, when they do work, they work best when telling a backstory that was beforehand mainly a mystery. Look, for example, at 'Better Call Saul' (the first season at least), which focused on the stories of characters from Breaking Bad that we knew the least/barely anything about backstory-wise. To me that worked and made for a compelling prequel because the writers had more leeway to create scenarios that weren't predetermined and so were more interesting because of that creative freedom. That's why I say "lack of inspiration"; it seems that they wanted a story that basically would write itself and mainly allow them to fit a load of action set-pieces around (in much the same way as GTA V was written). It's like we've been robbed of the "what" from the story; by this I mean we already know what is going to happen and all there is left to find out is "how" it happens, which is essentially what the speculation here is revolving around. Hell, the worst thing for me about that leak that got brought back up wasn't necessarily the spoilers themselves; it was that I'd actually already guessed that that's what would happen after having seen the trailer.

 

I know this is a game first and foremost, and my disappointment is alleviated somewhat by knowing that there are many aspects (the world, the systems, the physics) that make Rockstar's games what they are. It's just that it will be 8 years next Spring since Red Dead Redemption and to think that it's taken them all those years just to make a game set in barely any different a time period in the West's history and focusing on characters to whom we either already know what will happen or can make very informed guesses at. It's just disappointing what with RDR having been so unique in regards to its story, setting and themes. It really also makes you wonder how long this game has been in development hell like that leaker suggested and when they initially planned to release it; I can't imagine they themselves would have envisaged taking so long just to produce a prequel.

 

Again, apologies for being a bit of a downer!!

We know nothing about Arthur. Never heard before in first game so his tale could be very different from what we heard (Van Der Linde gang) in first game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

-snip-

We know nothing about Arthur. Never heard before in first game so his tale could be very different from what we heard (Van Der Linde gang) in first game.

 

 

John's mission in RDR was to kill/capture the members of his former gang..... I'm just not particularly confident in Rockstar having thought of some compelling or interesting way whereby Arthur wouldn't inevitably end up like his fellow members, nor anything unique storywise which couldn't already be guessed at. Maybe I'm being overly cynical now, but Arthur himself feels like little more than just some arbitrary "new" character to make the story seem more original than it actually is.

 

Just a shame that it all seems so narrow and pre-ordained!! :/

Edited by Mr. Jabe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am confident that I will enjoy RDR2 very much, but it would have been nice if R* had surprised us with something a bit more left field.

 

I was hoping for another tone and theme than the previous game, more classic and grand in the sense of old John Ford westerns or the Blueberry comics. Also, I was really hoping for an Indian protagonist (or at least one out of three) and a plot that concerned the Indian wars.

Edited by Bakamomo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say that I also feel a sting of disappointment. I am confident that I will enjoy RDR2 very much, but it would have been nice if R* had surprised us with something a bit more left field.

 

I was hoping for another tone and theme than the previous game, more epic and widescreen in the sense of classic John Ford westerns or the Blueberry comics. Also, I was really hoping for an Indian protagonist (or at least one out of three) and a plot that tied into the Indian wars.

 

Right there with you on the Indian wars - something set around the 1870s or 80s would have been perfect in that regard. Something set enough in advance of RDR to feel properly fresh but also not too early in the sense of not being hindered gameplay-wise by such considerations as weapons technology. You could argue that that post-Civil war period really marked the height of the Western period, what with the railway boom and the confrontations between the native population and a more properly 'United' States. Thematically that would have really made for an interesting counterpoint to RDR; 'the height of the West' as compared to 'the death of the West'. Have two protagonists - a young white cowboy and a young native American to convey the two different perspectives. Call it 'Red Dead Revolution', alluding to the changing landscape in terms of both its inhabitation as well as its industrialisation. F*ck - it's all starting to make so much sense in my mind that part of me can't believe this isn't what Rockstar did..........

 

It probably wouldn't be so bad disappointment-wise if it wasn't for the likelihood that any such game wasn't at least another 8 years away post-RDR2!! F*ck it Bakamomo, me and you should just go make it ourselves!!!

Edited by Mr. Jabe
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know absolutely nothing about dutchs first gang, the idea that prequels are bad because we know the outcome is lame and I much rather have rockstar choose what they want to do instead of adding a native protagonist for diversity points

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know absolutely nothing about dutchs first gang, the idea that prequels are bad because we know the outcome is lame and I much rather have rockstar choose what they want to do instead of adding a native protagonist for diversity points

 

We know an awful lot about Dutch's gang and how things transpired; if you don't believe me I'd suggest playing RDR again or going on the Red Dead wiki. And come on, surely you can see the potential for such a character beyond supposed "diversity points". I agree Rockstar can/should do what they want; I'm just seeing more and more of missed potential with this game.

Edited by Mr. Jabe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try to lok at it this way.

 

We see the story of Arthur,thorugh his eyes,we see the story of Marston and Dutch through another perspective,different form the one from RDR.

 

If R* are capable(I really doubt it lol) to make such a story that show the events of RDR in different light,then this is really going to be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is we still don't know much about the story of RDR2. I heard a theory that the burning plantation house that Arthur, Bill and Other Guy are walking away from is actually Dutch's and this scene represents them turning on his crazy ass.

 

If that's the case, the bulk of the story could easily be about Arthur and a few other members of Dutch's gang splitting off to form their own faction while Bill heads off to do the same and Dutch goes into hiding until Redemption 1.

 

That would leave us with a pretty open ended story that could go all kinds of surprising ways.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know people are here mainly to be excited/hyped about the game which is totally right, and I hate to be the one bringing the mood down so I won't say anymore too sceptical. There's still every possibility the game could hold some surprises/left-turns as some of you have suggested; I'm just personally not that confident with what we've seen/heard so far.

 

But hey, here's to hoping for the best regardless!! And if worst comes to worst, there's always GTA 6.....and if not that, then Bully 2...........and if not that, then Agent......................., and if not that, then......................................... :pp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rockstar has never done a sequel/prequel for a mainline game, the fact they are doing a prequel means they most likely have an interesting story idea or they wouldn't of doneit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rockstar has never done a sequel/prequel for a mainline game, the fact they are doing a prequel means they most likely have an interesting story idea or they wouldn't of doneit

But Both Liberty City Stories and Vice City stories were prequels to 3 and Vice city, and they featured alot of the same characters aswell, but you're right It'll be good

Edited by Pepperjack
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Notorious MOB

All games in the 3D era are essentially prequels to GTAIII. Spot on though Mr. Jabe you pretty much hit the nail on the head there. I also fear that the basic premise of the game will be pretty much the same. It's good that the majority of fans are still optimistic but it just goes to show that given the success of GTAV Rockstar will probably not take a risk again in the future. What's great for the majority however is often disappointing to core fans. No doubt the game will be thoroughly enjoyable but will it actually add anything to the series? I'm not so sure.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't wait to kidnap someone on their own when no-one is around, hogtie them onto the back of their horse and ride them up a mountain track where no-one goes, just to shoot them in the head and loot them.. then cook them in a campfire to dispose of the body.

Edited by B_E_N_1992
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am rather happy it is a prequel tbh.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

whatever the outcome, I still want to play as Arthur when the story is over

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holland_Hicks

I hope the entire map isn't open from the start.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.