Mapping Red Dead Redemption 2! Landmark Analysis Thread

[Chinese Takeout]

12 hours ago, TexasOdysseus said:

I'm not a real gamer, a mid-40s suburban Dad who got really caught up in RDR back in the day and love that game. So RDR2 is literally the first game I've ever pre-purchased. I'm also a huge map nerd and love GIS stuff so my hat is off to those of you who've put in the time to do such good work--y'all are on the mark I think with a great deal of this. 

 

My theory (which may be obtuse and obvious) is that the map was deliberately leaked. Rockstar's been so cagey and crafty on not overhyping a game that doesn't really need to be pumped up...they've been smartly conservative in their marketing to date, and now we're seeing the crescendo build to the release date. It's a good study in marketing, IMO. 

 

And I just think this is an utterly gorgeous looking game. It may very well be the greatest game ever when all is said and done. I can't wait. Again, thanks for he efforts of the community here--good stuff and I appreciate it. 

Glad you chimed in, Tex! I, too, am a mid-40's suburban father of 3. I don't buy the "not a real gamer" part, though for two reasons: RDR and RDR2.

 

I also agree with your "deliberate leak" theory, and I love Rockstar for that! I have no doubt its intentional. We saw the same thing with GTA5, and I've got my fingers crossed for GTA6 in the not-too-distant future. In the meantime, why not put your GIS skillz to use and help us refine this map? It's the perfect time to jump in, what with another gameplay video on the way.

 

Cheers!

51 minutes ago, DuPz0r said:

I'm not gonna start accepting New Austin is in the game until i see proof (visual proof, not a toy train annotation). Everyone is just setting themselves up for disappointment if it turns out its not in the game.

No, I'm with you DuP. I just added it to the map as a way to visualize (maybe for LORE than for the reality of the game world) what it would mean to have 5 states...how they would theoretically be proportioned. I don't consider it to be a foregone conclusion that it's in the game yet, and I won't be disappointed if it isn't in the game. My main focus is still mapping out all of the regions we've never been to.

Case in point: I've been analyzing all of the shots containing the mini-map, looking for clues. Haven't found much to speak of yet. I threw this video together with an enlarged map, just to see if it would help me spot something, but nothing yet.

 

 

[BretMaverick777]

1 hour ago, DuPz0r said:

This is my point. I'm not saying it wont be in the game. I'm not anti-New Austin or anything. But say we get a North Yankton style mission somewhere in that region which is self contained. Everyone has already set their minds on a whole state, it wont end well.

 

We should treat this information like the rest of the mapping project. If we see New Austin in the game footage, then we add it in.

Everybody is free to believe what they want; but this culture of "you're setting yourself up for disappointment" I keep seeing in the RDR2 forum continues to baffle me.   I'm no pollyanna cheerleader, and I believe a healthy dose of skepticism is usually a good thing; but I truly don't understand why so many of you want to dial this back every time we get great news.   Especially news that inevitably confirms all the leaks.   New Austin is not new info at all; it was leaked 2 years ago that Armadillo and Ridgewood Farm, specifically, by name, were returning.   Every other part of that same leak has been confirmed time and again.  So why insert doubt back into the equation again...? 

 

To me, it's simple.  Rockstar has set out to create the ultimate Western game.  I think everything that *can* be done with a Western game, *will* be done in this Western game, when all is said and done.   Every myth, every trope, every piece of the fictional West, every piece of the real West, is gonna be right here in RDR2.  So they're going to make sure every conceivable Wild West environment will be in this game.   That includes the great plains, the Rocky Mountains, the redwoods and sequoias, all the old growth forest, the northwoods, the deserts, the Monument Valleys, the Tombstone Arizonas, the Dodge City Kansases, the Deadwood South Dakotas, the Grand Canyons and the Scotts Bluffs and the Mississippi riverboats and the fancy hookers in New Orleans and the Southern plantations and the hills of Appalachia and the Ozarks and Old Mexico and the Yukon Trail through gold-rush Canada and Alaska....all the stories, all the colorful characters, all the playgrounds we could possibly want in a Wild West game....that's on tap.  

 

Nothing, and I do mean nothing, less than that.  

I believe.   Outlaws For Life.  For real.

Your mileage may vary.

[Herbert_Moon]

2 hours ago, DuPz0r said:

I'm not gonna start accepting New Austin is in the game until i see proof (visual proof, not a toy train annotation). Everyone is just setting themselves up for disappointment if it turns out its not in the game.

Sure its just an annotation. But Rockstar isnt stupid. They knew people would read that and jump to conclusions. So they either put that in as a subtle hint, or they just did it as a reference while knowing people will be massively disappointed when New Austin isn't part of the map.

[The Nefarious]

8 minutes ago, Herbert_Moon said:

Sure its just an annotation. But Rockstar isnt stupid. They knew people would read that and jump to conclusions. So they either put that in as a subtle hint, or they just did it as a reference while knowing people will be massively disappointed when New Austin isn't part of the map.

This isn't like one of those references to inexorable areas we get in the likes of GTA which are buried deep within dialogue or in-game media. This is an actual piece of promotional material which names New Austin and suggests that it is connected to the other areas via train tracks. I really just hope it makes sense from a story perspective and isn't just a cheap inclusion to artificially build hype and acclaim around a game which is otherwise lacking.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Money Over Bullshit

[jhjij]

12 hours ago, AzBat360 said:

45yr old dad here. Love maps & do GIS for a living & was a surveyor before that. The first Redemption game was a life changer for me & I've been gaming almost all my life. Haven't pre-ordered yet, but will, just haven't afforded it yet - dad stuff

 

15 hours ago, TexasOdysseus said:

I'm not a real gamer, a mid-40s suburban Dad who got really caught up in RDR back in the day and love that game. So RDR2 is literally the first game I've ever pre-purchased. I'm also a huge map nerd and love GIS stuff so my hat is off to those of you who've put in the time to do such good work--y'all are on the mark I think with a great deal of this. 

Nice to notice I'm not the only old fart and dad here. 41 years now, and I've played in my entire life, but as a father, no longer had time enough. I think rdr2 is the only game for the next few years that I play, hopefully it's as big as I can expect. 

[Jabalous]

1 hour ago, BretMaverick777 said:

Rockstar has set out to create the ultimate Western game.

I couldn't agree more. It'd have been a waste of the technology not to create the Ultimate Western game. Surely Rockstar has spent many years developing and refining the graphics rendering solution in RAGE, and not using that to create the ultimate Western environment could possibly induce regrets later, especially when knowing that the next Red Dead game, if there will be one!, will likely not be coming before another 8 years or so. Redemption II is probably being built to be as modular as GTA V/O. The stories have to be rich and encompassing, the environments should virtually cover all biomes found in the Western pop culture, the gunplay has to be slick and fluid to remain relevant many years down the road, and so on. 

 

Unlike Redemption, this game is likely to be supported with more content beyond the first two years of release and it'll seemingly be Rockstar's only original title for the current cycle of consoles. 

Edited September 1, 2018 by Efreet

[DuPz0r]

2 hours ago, BretMaverick777 said:

Everybody is free to believe what they want; but this culture of "you're setting yourself up for disappointment" I keep seeing in the RDR2 forum continues to baffle me.   I'm no pollyanna cheerleader, and I believe a healthy dose of skepticism is usually a good thing; but I truly don't understand why so many of you want to dial this back every time we get great news.   Especially news that inevitably confirms all the leaks.   New Austin is not new info at all; it was leaked 2 years ago that Armadillo and Ridgewood Farm, specifically, by name, were returning.   Every other part of that same leak has been confirmed time and again.  So why insert doubt back into the equation again?

Sure there's always room for Skepticism, i'm always skeptical with this stuff, that's why i'm here mapping it with you guys. I like the mystery of trying to solve it. 

 

What i dont enjoy is hyping myself up to the point that the game is this perfect world. I did that a lot growing up, and as i get older i trust less and less games to produce the goods. Hell i started here with GTA after GTA3 came out. R* is different, i know they will push the boundries as always.

 

But the point is, i dont like to over-expect without proof. That's just what the games industry has done to me personally over the years.

 

If i start to think New Austin's map is in it, it will feel like a kick in the balls if it isnt, because suddenly the map has taken a huge hit it terms of size.

 

I'm not trying to force my opinion down your throats, just letting you know why i prefer to have proof.

 

And i would like to see if someone can match the desert scene with RDR1, that would make my day.

Edited September 1, 2018 by DuPz0r

[jimmybrooks]

To expect the "ultimate" game is not what we should do. Rockstar is trying to do its best and nothing more. I remember expecting BOTW (Breath of the Wild) to be the perfect Zelda game, and while it is awesome, it is still not the "ultimate" Zelda game. I hope you understand me, dudes and dudettes

(EDIT: But BOTW was still a next step in game industry, as i see RDR2 to be)

And now my thoughts on New Austin: It's not confirmed, as someone mentioned before. And for me it is also not logical, because there can only be less buildings in earlier times. And which game puts old maps in it to be "ultimate"? Places we already know?

Ok, they put in West Elizabeth again, so my argument is quite destroyed, but New Austin? No, i still don't believe it.

And Amborino: When i see the Rockies, i see grey stone not red .. i see no color matching there.

So, this was my shot

Edited September 1, 2018 by jimmybrooks

[Non Funkable Token]

R* used both Liberty City and Vice City 3D era maps twice (GTA III-LCS, GTA Vice City-VCS). The returning old map discussion is a dead beaten horse by now.

[Mynameisnobody]

9 hours ago, BretMaverick777 said:

Arrr....yer getting too far off the reservation with this Cowboys of the Caribbean notion, matey.    The game is about the American West, not Assassin's Creed:  Black Flag.  

 

While Ambarino *could* be named for the fossilized tree resin, there's no conceivable application for that to Wild West lore at all.   We're better off looking at the word as a description of the color, not the fossilized stuff.  

Arrrrr I don't know if im going too far  [https://www.noelshack.com/2018-35-6-1535768214-screen-shot-2018-09-01-at-035337-1.png] (little map to explain my thought)

 

1898 : The U.S. declares war on Spain and in victory gains dominion over Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Philippines, and Guam.

 

This island at the top of the leak map look to be from Caribbean. Then we still are not sure where is the desert shot (most probably to the south, does make sense)

 

So  imagine Ambarino is a match of south mexico and Republica Dominica. Ofc your theories look much more possible and I'm going too far ^^ ...

 

But wait Assassin's Creed:  Black Flag.....end of 1900's bro it's quite something else .... I mean the age of pirates is almost over The "war of restoration"...blablabla...

 

> By 1902, the Wild Bunch had disbanded for good. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (along with Etta Place) left the country, presumably for South America, 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty much the happiest with a map like you have shown, I mean there is all the heart of Western in there.

 

But why Ambarino would be just about the color...when you have an island like that...when we can see a desert that we have never seen....just trying to figure out.

 

The Canadian theory is interesting too  

 

And yes The game is about the American West and im not for Cowboys of the Caribbean (even tough the cowboy culture is vivid in Cuba for example), but nothing prevent a little part  of the adventure to be south east  

 

 

Edited September 1, 2018 by Mynameisnobody

[nubcaker]

9 hours ago, AzBat360 said:

For the past couple of years it was considered ridiculous that the leaked map was legit. Then it was ridiculous that New Austin was being included. Guess what? Both are now all but confirmed. The game has been in development hell for years & delayed publicly twice. I believe the delay was due to integrating original map or at least New Austin. The story could be they planned on remastering the game then decided against it & then just integrated what they had completed with the new game. Or the opposite, they planned on adding just New Austin & then figured they had done enough to either integrate Nuevo Paraiso or they could separate the work for an official remaster. I think we're either getting a quassi remaster in 1 game or possibly getting a true separate released remaster. Remember Sony has marketing rights. Guess what they don't have? A proper PS4 playable version of Redemption(PSNow doesn't count). The presence of New Austin in Redemption2 just made any of those 2 theories much more probable.

The idea that they'd give us the entirety of RDR in RDR2 WITH new mechanics and interaction systems, essentially breaking the flow of the first game entirely, (unless they redid all the missions to fit the new mechanics) it's just too ridiculously outlandish to even consider. I think you're not considering the sheer complexity of accomplishing this and for what? So we can play RDR yet again, even though this is supposed to be a prequel? I see that as an utter waste of resources. Resources that could've gone to delivering us a proper prequel that stands just fine on its own. No way. There's no way Rockstar did what you're saying they might have done.

[AzBat360]

8 minutes ago, nubcaker said:

The idea that they'd give us the entirety of RDR in RDR2 WITH new mechanics and interaction systems, essentially breaking the flow of the first game entirely, (unless they redid all the missions to fit the new mechanics) it's just too ridiculously outlandish to even consider. I think you're not considering the sheer complexity of accomplishing this and for what? So we can play RDR yet again, even though this is supposed to be a prequel? I see that as an utter waste of resources. Resources that could've gone to delivering us a proper prequel that stands just fine on its own. No way. There's no way Rockstar did what you're saying they might have done.

 

When I say quasi remaster I don't mean bringing the complete game mechanics into the new game. Just the map. Only way they bring back that is with full separate remaster. I just mentioned that since New Austin is all but confirmed The probability of a remaster is high. Same goes for the entirety of the original map. But my gut says no Nuevo Paraiso in the new game, just New Austin.

[Nyfyr]

Starting to believe the Grizzlies might just be another part of New Hanover, and maybe or maybe not Big Valley. Just haven’t seen proof that Big valley is a part of West Elisabeth.

[Nutduster]

3 hours ago, Fluffy Sock said:

R* used both Liberty City and Vice City 3D era maps twice (GTA III-LCS, GTA Vice City-VCS). The returning old map discussion is a dead beaten horse by now.

 

Those were budget-priced spin-off titles. Reusing more than a tiny fraction of an old map in a major release would be a first for them. Also a kind of strange first since we know Marston is in this game as part of the gang, we know the gang travels with Arthur (at least for a lot of the game), and we know Marston hasn't been to New Austin before.

 

I'll be thrilled if they find a way to include it. And I think at this point it's more likely than not. Nonetheless, I do think people are getting a little carried away.

 

Nothing is ever confirmed until it comes from the horse's mouth or we can lay eyes on it ourselves (at least in a trailer).

Edited September 1, 2018 by Nutduster

[SneakyDeaky]

11 hours ago, DuPz0r said:

This is my point. I'm not saying it wont be in the game. I'm not anti-New Austin or anything. But say we get a North Yankton style mission somewhere in that region which is self contained. Everyone has already set their minds on a whole state, it wont end well.

 

We should treat this information like the rest of the mapping project. If we see New Austin in the game footage, then we add it in.

I agree, I love the speculation but we must use the evidence that is there and not get too carried away. For some people, suddenly the map has grown to include the leaked map, New Austin, Neuvo Paraiso and Ambarino, a brand new region, and I don't see explicit evidence to support the map suddenly growing 2 to 3 times in size.

Some assorted BS:

In all the media Rockstar has released, trailers, screenshots, gameplay videos, why have we not seen any evidence of these locations except for one infamous desert shot and vague descriptions of a gang hideout and the train networks? New Austin would be a huge addition to the map, obviously the same for Neuvo Paraiso. And yet Rockstar has barely touched on these locations and seem to be hiding them?

Most of the media has focused on the leaked map and the story seems to primarily take place there. John Martson said the gang never went to New Austin; Perhaps Authur did, but we mostly agree if Arthur splits off from the gang, it will be late game. Say he goes to New Austin late in the game, why include the whole of New Austin for a brief, late section of the story? Or say he just visits New Austin during the game, why include the whole of New Austin just for exploration and perhaps some side missions? When you consider the synopsis for the story and the media that has been presented to us, some things don't add up.

Some of you have suggested the map was built by two different teams, one worked on the leaked map we know and love, another worked on "remastering" New Austin. Ok, then why are there edge of world boundaries clearly marked on the map? It makes no sense! If they know the map connects to New Austin, there is no need for those markings, especially around West Elizabeth. The edge of world boundaries even cut of Thieves Landing, which makes no sense if they are redoing New Austin alongside this map.

 

It leads me to speculate that the leaked map could be older than we think and New Austin was only considered a lot later in development. Or it could mean New Austin is locked to MP only, so then those boundaries make a bit more sense. That would be devastating to me, as I'm sick of gameplay being locked to MP. It could also mean New Austin is like a North Yankton/Liberty City in San Andreas deal and it is a location you only visit in the story, and is limited to that mission. We cannot just assume the game will include the whole of New Austin as much as we cannot just assume it doesn't right now.

The leak that mentioned Ridgewood and Armadillo is actually not from 2016, it's from February of this year: https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/red-dead-redemption-2-leak-reveals-battle-royale-first-person-more-3388634

The reddit leak, that is from 2016, mentioned 5 states. Ambarino, New Hanover, West Elizabeth, Lemoyne and New Austin, I guess. What's interesting to me is Arthur says in trailer 2 "We have lawmen from three different states after us." Which of the 3 do you think he means? West Elizabeth for sure, and likely New Hanover.  We have no idea if the cutscene is from very late in the game for the third to be Lemoyne, but what if the third is actually Ambarino, the Grizzlies, where the "intro" is marked? Which would add a bit more to the Ambarino/Colorado theory. 

Edited September 1, 2018 by SneakyDeaky

[Chinese Takeout]

3 hours ago, Fluffy Sock said:

R* used both Liberty City and Vice City 3D era maps twice (GTA III-LCS, GTA Vice City-VCS). The returning old map discussion is a dead beaten horse by now.

Dont mind if I do!

[SneakyDeaky]

I respectfully demand that you Rockstar cocksnobs that are reading this thread, begrudgingly leak the full map to us today, so we can put an end to this teasing and get some much needed release.

I am a stern sado-masochist but I am also against torture.

[Sausache]

13 hours ago, Chinese Takeout said:

ça va?

 

Sisika and Copperhead Landing is a part of Bluegill Marsh, not Roanoke. Still, well done. For comparison's sake, could you make the second possibility? New Hanover as Grizzlies Intro, Big Valley and New Hanover, Lemoyne as Scarlett Meadows, Bayou NWA and Bluegill Marsh, and Amobrino as Grizzlies, Cumberland Forest and Roanoke Ridge. I feel like borders in that scenario might line up better, and we end up with a much more balanced town distribution.

[Jabalous]

For all we know, the mention of New Austin (NA) in Outlaw Essentials Collection can just be a reference to an actual state that exists in the Red Dead universe, in the same way Vice City and San Fierro are mentioned in GTA V. We still aren't completely sure that it will physically exist in the game and will be fully explorable at some point during the story. We should still be open to all possibilities in regard to its existence. It's true that Marston said that the gang never set a foot in the state, but won't we witness the fall-from-grace and disbanding phase of the gang, which will lead to members like Williamson to head into the west to Fort Mercer?

 

Who's to say that Arthur, or whoever we may possibly be playing with, will not also head to NA and the final 25% of the story will take place there? NA is large for only 10-15 story missions, I agree, but remember that large parts of GTA V's map were not utilized in story missions.  

Edited September 2, 2018 by Efreet

[GTARDR]

We need that new trailer... NOW!

[Chinese Takeout]

26 minutes ago, Efreet said:

For all we know, the mention of New Austin (NA) in Outlaw Essentials Collection can just be a reference to an actual state that exists in the Red Dead universe, in the same way Vice City and San Fierro are mentioned in GTA V. We still aren't completely sure that it will physically exist in the game and will be fully explorable at some point during the story. We should still be open to all possibilities in regard to its existence. It's true that Marston said that the gang never set a foot in the state, but won't we witness the fall-from-grace and disbanding phase of the gang, which will lead to members like Williamson to head into the west to Fort Mercer?

 

Who's it to say that Arthur, or whoever we may possibly be playing with, will not also head to NA and the final 25% of the story will take place there? NA is large for only 10-15 story missions, I agree, but remember that large parts of GTA V's map were not utilized in story missions.  

Great points! I always thought we were putting too much emphasis on "John said the gang never came to NA." We may witness John being left for dead, and then he's out of the gang, off to build a new life with Abigail and Jack. Meanwhile, Arthur and Dutch and the rest of the gang start to fracture, and as you say...the final portions of the gang splinter off into WE, NA and NP (or who knows where else).

 

One other thing I would add...it's not 100% impossible that a little retcon here and there could happen. If R* had a great story to tell in RDR2, but they were hamstrung by one or two little lines of dialogue contained in RDR1...I'd hope they'd find a way around that with a little creative re-writing.

[BretMaverick777]

54 minutes ago, Sausache said:

Sisika and Copperhead Landing is a part of Bluegill Marsh, not Roanoke. Still, well done. For comparison's sake, could you make the second possibility? New Hanover as Grizzlies Intro, Big Valley and New Hanover, Lemoyne as Scarlett Meadows, Bayou NWA and Bluegill Marsh, and Amobrino as Grizzlies, Cumberland Forest and Roanoke Ridge. I feel like borders in that scenario might line up better, and we end up with a much more balanced town distribution.

Eh, I don't see how "town distribution" plays a role in anything at all.  Yeah, if Lemoyne comprises Scarlett Meadows, Bayou/St Denis, and Roanoke Ridge/Bluegill, it's got the most towns and cities.  ...So what?  That's the way America distributed urban areas, with the majority in the East and along the Pacific Coast.  The heartland is meant to be frontier.  And it is. 

[mohnix]

Quote

Rockstar Games and Fascinations have collaborated to produce a Metal Earth 3D Puzzle for you to build, inspired by Red Dead Redemption 2. The Train, as featured in the game, runs passengers and freight on the entire network of railways throughout Ambarino, New Hanover, West Elizabeth, Lemoyne and New Austin.

They could've left out the last sentence completely, as it has nothing to do with the actual toy. I think this is a tease, and the first time they're actually talking about the states by name if I'm not mistaken. We know about New Hanover from previews and we've seen Blackwater a number of times, but Lemoyne (not considering the leaked map obviously) and Ambarino are new.  

 

So while staying skeptical, I think New Austin will be in the game. 

[Non Funkable Token]

18 minutes ago, mohnix said:

They could've left out the last sentence completely, as it has nothing to do with the actual toy. I think this is a tease, and the first time they're actually talking about the states by name if I'm not mistaken. We know about New Hanover from previews and we've seen Blackwater a number of times, but Lemoyne (not considering the leaked map obviously) and Ambarino are new.  

 

So while staying skeptical, I think New Austin will be in the game. 

 

Lemoyne word has appeared in the gameplay trailer and the collector's box puzzle, at the very least. But your point stands. Mentioning a list of RDR states when showcasing a toy locomotive is a bit...... Out of the blue.

[Sausache]

For all we know, the mention of New Austin (NA) in Outlaw Essentials Collection can just be a reference to an actual state that exists in the Red Dead universe, in the same way Vice City and San Fierro are mentioned in GTA V. We still aren't completely sure that it will physically exist in the game and will be fully explorable at some point during the story. We should still be open to all possibilities in regard to its existence. It's true that Marston said that the gang never set a foot in the state, but won't we witness the fall-from-grace and disbanding phase of the gang, which will lead to members like Williamson to head into the west to Fort Mercer?

 

Who's it to say that Arthur, or whoever we may possibly be playing with, will not also head to NA and the final 25% of the story will take place there? NA is large for only 10-15 story missions, I agree, but remember that large parts of GTA V's map were not utilized in story missions.  

Under normal circumstances I'd agree with you, but if you look at Rockstar's wording, there is really no room interpretation.

That isn't a reference to another game at this point. For GTAV, when they were showing off merch before release, there is no way in hell would they say anything about Vice City/Las Venturas/San Fierro with "as featured in the game". This means New Austin is in the game, and trains travel there.

8 minutes ago, BretMaverick777 said:

Eh, I don't see how "town distribution" plays a role in anything at all.  Yeah, if Lemoyne comprises Scarlett Meadows, Bayou/St Denis, and Roanoke Ridge/Bluegill, it's got the most towns and cities.  ...So what?  That's the way America distributed urban areas, with the majority in the East and along the Pacific Coast.  The heartland is meant to be frontier.  And it is. 

Town distribution is very important. As much as you'd like to disagree, you spend a good deal of time in towns. Not to mention, if there a bounty hunting system, and mini-maps suggest exactly that, it would have to be divided by states, like how it was in the first game. Bounties really only make sense being started in civilized areas at a sheriff's office, so each state should have at least a few places to start bounties. You couldn't do any bounties in Amborino if neither Roanoke nor Cumberland Forest is part of it. Also, it's worth noting that Lemoyne is heavily based on Louisiana. A heavily mountainous region named Roanoke Ridge doesn't fit with the rest of those regions in that state in the slightest. It absolutely fits with a region based on Colorado though.

[mohnix]

4 minutes ago, Fluffy Sock said:

 

Lemoyne word has appeared in the gameplay trailer and the collector's box puzzle, at the very least. But your point stands. Mentioning a list of RDR states when showcasing a toy locomotive is a bit...... Out of the blue.

Ah you're right. But still, they even mentioned a completely new state. I don't know in what shape or form, but New Austin will probably be in the game.

[Herbert_Moon]

The fact is they went out of their way to specifically mention New Austin. 

[Chinese Takeout]

2 hours ago, Sausache said:

Sisika and Copperhead Landing is a part of Bluegill Marsh, not Roanoke. Still, well done. For comparison's sake, could you make the second possibility? New Hanover as Grizzlies Intro, Big Valley and New Hanover, Lemoyne as Scarlett Meadows, Bayou NWA and Bluegill Marsh, and Amobrino as Grizzlies, Cumberland Forest and Roanoke Ridge. I feel like borders in that scenario might line up better, and we end up with a much more balanced town distribution.

UNO

Spoiler

 

DOS

Spoiler

 

TRES

Spoiler

 

[The Nefarious]

3 hours ago, SneakyDeaky said:

I agree, I love the speculation but we must use the evidence that is there and not get too carried away. For some people, suddenly the map has grown to include the leaked map, New Austin, Neuvo Paraiso and Ambarino, a brand new region, and I don't see explicit evidence to support the map suddenly growing 2 to 3 times in size.

Some assorted BS:

In all the media Rockstar has released, trailers, screenshots, gameplay videos, why have we not seen any evidence of these locations except for one infamous desert shot and vague descriptions of a gang hideout and the train networks? New Austin would be a huge addition to the map, obviously the same for Neuvo Paraiso. And yet Rockstar has barely touched on these locations and seem to be hiding them?

Most of the media has focused on the leaked map and the story seems to primarily take place there. John Martson said the gang never went to New Austin; Perhaps Authur did, but we mostly agree if Arthur splits off from the gang, it will be late game. Say he goes to New Austin late in the game, why include the whole of New Austin for a brief, late section of the story? Or say he just visits New Austin during the game, why include the whole of New Austin just for exploration and perhaps some side missions? When you consider the synopsis for the story and the media that has been presented to us, some things don't add up.

Some of you have suggested the map was built by two different teams, one worked on the leaked map we know and love, another worked on "remastering" New Austin. Ok, then why are there edge of world boundaries clearly marked on the map? It makes no sense! If they know the map connects to New Austin, there is no need for those markings, especially around West Elizabeth. The edge of world boundaries even cut of Thieves Landing, which makes no sense if they are redoing New Austin alongside this map.

 

It leads me to speculate that the leaked map could be older than we think and New Austin was only considered a lot later in development. Or it could mean New Austin is locked to MP only, so then those boundaries make a bit more sense. That would be devastating to me, as I'm sick of gameplay being locked to MP. It could also mean New Austin is like a North Yankton/Liberty City in San Andreas deal and it is a location you only visit in the story, and is limited to that mission. We cannot just assume the game will include the whole of New Austin as much as we cannot just assume it doesn't right now.

The leak that mentioned Ridgewood and Armadillo is actually not from 2016, it's from February of this year: https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/red-dead-redemption-2-leak-reveals-battle-royale-first-person-more-3388634

The reddit leak, that is from 2016, mentioned 5 states. Ambarino, New Hanover, West Elizabeth, Lemoyne and New Austin, I guess. What's interesting to me is Arthur says in trailer 2 "We have lawmen from three different states after us." Which of the 3 do you think he means? West Elizabeth for sure, and likely New Hanover.  We have no idea if the cutscene is from very late in the game for the third to be Lemoyne, but what if the third is actually Ambarino, the Grizzlies, where the "intro" is marked? Which would add a bit more to the Ambarino/Colorado theory. 

Sorry to quote a sh*tload of text just to focus in on one part but I'm on my phone. 

 

Basically they seem to be drip feeding us the big reveals. First it was John. Then it was Abigail and Jack (which I have to believe were intentionally left out of the previews) and the next one will probably be New Austin.. likely when they give a run through of the different gangs in the next gameplay trailer. Just my thoughts.

[Herbert_Moon]

10 minutes ago, Money Over Bullsh*t said:

Sorry to quote a sh*tload of text just to focus in on one part but I'm on my phone. 

 

Basically they seem to be drip feeding us the big reveals. First it was John. Then it was Abigail and Jack (which I have to believe were intentionally left out of the previews) and the next one will probably be New Austin.. likely when they give a run through of the different gangs in the next gameplay trailer. Just my thoughts.

Yup. The average person might not notice but they’re putting these tiny things out for those of us here who will notice.