Mapping Red Dead Redemption 2! Landmark Analysis Thread

[Mynameisnobody]

NA will be back, there is no doubt in my mind. They would have never shown it in the last gameplay  if it was not the case...(from a marketing point of view it's common sense). I'm still quite surprised that people are still arguing about it  so many points that kinda confirm NA to be returning. 

 

And it would be such a waste to not use these kinds of lands in a time as 1899 (there is honestly so much narrative potential that comes to my mind)

 

I'm not gonna list some of my thought about it as I did in previous thread...but yes I bet all my money on NA to be back...they teased us too much 

 

OFC Nuevo Paraiso is still open to a lot of discussion... 

[2019Redifiv/2020Modifiv]

But isn't the point that since this map by so many accounts is either as big or bigger than GTA V, then there simply HAS to be more playable space than either the leaked map or the documentation provided by Rockstar has shown us so far?

[Borland12]

So they remastered LS from how it was in 2001 in GTA 3 to how it is in 2008 in GTA 4, they remastered San Andreas map from 2004 into V's map in 2013. There's 8 years gap between RDR and RDR2, they can surely remaster original map, make it bigger or change some parts like they did previously

[Arthur Borgan]

8 hours ago, USAPatriot said:

I've been having fun mapping this and I am curious about this desert region too...

 

But I am truly not sure why people LOVE deserts so much.  Speaking in generalities in this game's sense, it's just a pretty flat, empty region.  Why is that fun?  Why wouldn't a beautiful forested region with creeks and ponds be more exciting to people?  A hot, barren, dirt/sand.  What is enticing about that?  

 

I am truly curious, but this isn't the topic to discuss it I guess.  Are people more curious about it's location, or do they really think they will spend more time in a desert then amongst the towns and tree's of the world?  Hm.

 

What RDR 1 did nicely is they made really nice arid regions varying from scrublands and canyon lands that have desert climates.   But it wasn't just flat, empty, deserts. No matter what, Rockstar will do a great job as they have nailed down environments.

 

 

Brought that up about a hundred pages ago.  I would actually go look for it.  It was a very good, in depth discussion.

I'm looking forward to it as it adds variety. Yes, you are correct; by definition it should be a "boring" area but as you say R* will add lots of variation. New wildlife should jazz it up too

[Im2akillerfish]

2 hours ago, Cutter De Blanc said:

I wouldn't have thought they would have created North Yankton just for the sake of a North Yankton type scenario either but here we are

 

The place even has easter eggs

But Rockstar never put a scene from North Yankton to a gameplay trailer and said you can explore America's midwestern states. And as mentioned before, North Yankton also wasn't separated from the state of San Andreas by a tiny river that's mirror calm downstream. 

 

On the topic of Mexico, I'm keeping my stand that while I hope and believe it's there, I'm going to assume it's not until it's officially confirmed. And as I've stated previously, there's a simple way to keep Arthur out of Mexico, just make the river too powerful to swim across, have no boats spawn after the Manteca Falls, and kill Arthur if he dies to bring a boat through the falls. 

 

Should the thread be renamed to "Mapping the RDR universe" so the argument of whether or not NA and NP are in RDR II doesn't repeat every 5 pages? 

[colahead420]

14 minutes ago, Im2akillerfish said:

On the topic of Mexico, I'm keeping my stand that while I hope and believe it's there, I'm going to assume it's not until it's officially confirmed. And as I've stated previously, there's a simple way to keep Arthur out of Mexico, just make the river too powerful to swim across, have no boats spawn after the Manteca Falls, and kill Arthur if he dies to bring a boat through the falls. 

It's definitely possible to pull this off and that's how they'd do it if they really didn't want us to go there.  Personally, I don't think they'd show it in the lizard screenshot if we couldn't go there but we'll see.  We haven't seen any living being in Nuevo Paraiso so...

Also I doubt we'll get any more info or an official confirmation on the subject FROM R* (maybe from people who get the game earlier), but I'm probably going to stay away from the forums and reddit when we get to the 10 day countdown anyway.

[thekumul]

What are peoples thoughts on the scene in gameplay trailer part 2 where Arthur comes across the 2 (escaped?) prisoners fighting, could this be our first glimpse of the Sisika Penitentiary Island up close? Or would it make more sense for them to be back on the mainland? I've been thinking about this for a while and haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere, sorry if I missed that discussion though. 

 

Timestamp is 3:14 

 

Edited October 10, 2018 by thekumul

[caballatremendo]

I propose an exercise, Arthur can go beyond the mountains, the desert is not found and can swim but can not fly;)

Take Google Maps and enter:

Grizzley Peak Road (Colorado Spring)

Monument Valley

Grand Canyon

[Riverstone]

41 minutes ago, thekumul said:

What are peoples thoughts on the scene in gameplay trailer part 2 where Arthur comes across the 2 (escaped?) prisoners fighting, could this be our first glimpse of the Sisika Penitentiary Island up close? Or would it make more sense for them to be back on the mainland. I've been thinking about this for a while and haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere, sorry if I missed that discussion though. 

 

Timestamp is 3:14 

 

This scene is most likely in Rhodes - reason being there is the reddish soil colour associated with that location. Also there is a cutting with a rail running through it. The railroad at Rhodes is also in a cutting. The buildings in the background are hard to identify though.

[DuPz0r]

3 hours ago, Orfan Loom said:

Didn't they recycle Liberty City and Los Santos in the past?

Liberty City Stories

Vice City Stories

Even Chinatown Wars was a lowpoly "optimised" version if GTA IV's Liberty City.

Edited October 10, 2018 by DuPz0r

[Svip]

In fairness, LCS and VCS were more spin-offs than the main line.  While possibly a little unfair, they should be considered expansions, in the light of The Lost and the Damned and The Ballade of Gay Tony were to GTA4 rather than fully standalone games like the main series.  But where LCS and VCS actually modified the cities they were in (because it was different time periods), the two story DLCs for GTA4 left Liberty City itself almost completely untouched.  Although, wish we had gotten even something like this for GTA5.

 

I'd rather say that Liberty City, for instance, was reused twice; it was first used in GTA1, then reused for GTA3 and again in GTA4.  Of course, these reuses were almost completely different.  While the city maintained the same name, everything in it was modified.  Major areas changed names.  In fact, I think GTA3's was more similar to GTA1's Liberty City than GTA4's was to GTA3's.  In terms of names.

 

Of course, I say 'reuse' rather than 'recycling'.  Or more appropriately; re-imaginations.  Like a reboot or some such.  Since Rockstar Games themselves consider for GTA three distinct universes; 2D, 3D and HD, we can accept that there are three versions of Liberty City (GTA Chinatown Wars, notwithstanding).  But I don't think they distinct RDR1 and RDR2 in this fashion.  In fact, it is all too apparent that these two games take place in the same universe.

 

For LCS and VCS, there was no upscaling or anything of that sort.  While there was changes to the map, yes, there was not huge improvements in terms of graphics.  Indeed, these games were supposed to run a 'smaller' hardware (the PS Vita, I believe?) than the games they were based on.

 

For all intents and purposes, if any of the RDR1 map makes it into RDR2 (and we are 100% certain West Elizabeth makes it), we are technically in uncharted territory for Rockstar Games and an old map in a new game.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Svip

[B_E_N_1992]

Gta 6 will have all the main previous cities in one map, rdr2 is the first step to that.

Edited October 10, 2018 by B_E_N_1992

[Chinese Takeout]

Just now, B_E_N_1992 said:

Gta 6 will have all the main previous cities in one map 

But no minor ones, like Paleto Bay, Sandy Shores or Chumash?

[horns]

Carson City or bust

[Spadeflush]

3 hours ago, Svip said:

For LCS and VCS, there was no upscaling or anything of that sort.  While there was changes to the map, yes, there was not huge improvements in terms of graphics.  Indeed, these games were supposed to run a 'smaller' hardware (the PS Vita, I believe?) than the games they were based on.

PSP

[michael99420]

57 minutes ago, B_E_N_1992 said:

Gta 6 will have all the main previous cities in one map, rdr2 is the first step to that.

 Ive always wished they would do this... What would be sweet is if they use the current maps of GTA V, map of GTA 4 and this read dead map (current day of course) along with a new vice city. Obviously the issue with the GTA maps is that they are islands in the past games but they could make it work with some small mainland US to connect them all.

[Chinese Takeout]

29 minutes ago, michael99420 said:

 Ive always wished they would do this... What would be sweet is if they use the current maps of GTA V, map of GTA 4 and this read dead map (current day of course) along with a new vice city. Obviously the issue with the GTA maps is that they are islands in the past games but they could make it work with some small mainland US to connect them all.

Ever since I played Nintendo's Pilotwings 64 in 1996, I've dreamt of a larger-scale version of the Little States map they made...

 

...and I've always thought that one day R* will be the ones to do this. Imagine a R* version of the entire United States. Come on, Rockstar...

Spoiler

 

 

[Original Light]

I feel certain that Armadillo is 100% in the game... whether it's accessible in regular free-roam, or maybe only in a certain mission... similar to North Yankton in GTA V. I lean towards it being available in free roam when paired with the other rumors and "leaks". 

 

The silhouette of the buildings in both shots are identical, no question about it.

 

 

Edited October 10, 2018 by Original Light

[Chinese Takeout]

3 minutes ago, Original Light said:

I feel certain that Armadillo is 100% in the game... whether it's accessible in regular free-roam, or maybe only in a certain mission... similar to North Yankton in GTA V. I lean towards it being available in free roam when paired with the other rumors and "leaks". 

 

The silhouette of the buildings in both shots are identical, no question about it.

 

You should feel certain.

[DuPz0r]

2 hours ago, Chinese Takeout said:

Ever since I played Nintendo's Pilotwings 64 in 1996, I've dreamt of a larger-scale version of the Little States map they made...

 

...and I've always thought that one day R* will be the ones to do this. Imagine a R* version of the entire United States. Come on, Rockstar...

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Didnt "The Crew" have a fully open world minaturized version of the whole of the United States. I know it's racing only, i didnt play it though.

Edited October 10, 2018 by DuPz0r

[Chinese Takeout]

17 minutes ago, DuPz0r said:

Didnt "The Crew" have a fully open world minaturized version of the whole of the United States. I know it's racing only, i didnt play it though.

Yeah. I played the demo and the beta, and it wasn't a horrible game, really, but not what I would call open-world...or at least not Rockstar Open-world. It was basically a much more interesting "FUEL" (which isn't saying too terribly much, haha).

 

But, still...another good example of what R* could do even better. 

[michael99420]

2 hours ago, Chinese Takeout said:

Ever since I played Nintendo's Pilotwings 64 in 1996, I've dreamt of a larger-scale version of the Little States map they made...

 

 

...and I've always thought that one day R* will be the ones to do this. Imagine a R* version of the entire United States. Come on, Rockstar...

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

YES! This way if they have a new vice city, RDR 2 map present day those would both be new locations to explore (RDR 2 map being current day with the same geography) and all of what connects them would also be new area. I wouldnt need the connecting area to be an accurate size of the US to be happy with it.

Edited October 10, 2018 by michael99420
bad formatting

[Pink Pineapple]

9 hours ago, Im2akillerfish said:

But Rockstar never put a scene from North Yankton to a gameplay trailer and said you can explore America's midwestern states.

 

In GTA V's gameplay trailer, they said we could buy apartments in single player, but that ended up being online-only.

 

Think about all of the things they added to GTA online that weren't included in single player. For RDR2, they're definitely going to make some really good content online exclusive to push people to multiplayer where they can sell cash cards. They're not going to have all the crazy vehicles like GTA online, so they'd need some other big draw like a map expansion 

[Chinese Takeout]

23 minutes ago, Pink Pineapple said:

 

In GTA V's gameplay trailer, they said we could buy apartments in single player, but that ended up being online-only.

 

Think about all of the things they added to GTA online that weren't included in single player. For RDR2, they're definitely going to make some really good content online exclusive to push people to multiplayer where they can sell cash cards. They're not going to have all the crazy vehicles like GTA online, so they'd need some other big draw like a map expansion 

You're right, they will need a constant stream of content to lure people to RDRO, and keep them there, so they can maximize their revenue, and I could see them *possibly* releasing a map that is exclusive to online players, but if you're suggesting that they would charge for that map, I disagree with you. Most Triple-A developers stopped charging for map expansions halfway through this gen because they learned it fractures their userbase, and then has a negative impact on their revenue. This was expressly why EA didnt charge for any of the Battlefront 2 expansions (of course, they were expecting to shift their revenue to Loot Box microtransactions, and we all know how that turned out, haha).

So, yeah R* will need to have mucho sources of revenue extenders for RDRO, but there's no way an exclusive map for sale will be part of it. If they have any map expansions, they will be free.

[Len Lfc]

29 minutes ago, Chinese Takeout said:

You're right, they will need a constant stream of content to lure people to RDRO, and keep them there, so they can maximize their revenue, and I could see them *possibly* releasing a map that is exclusive to online players, but if you're suggesting that they would charge for that map, I disagree with you. Most Triple-A developers stopped charging for map expansions halfway through this gen because they learned it fractures their userbase, and then has a negative impact on their revenue. This was expressly why EA didnt charge for any of the Battlefront 2 expansions (of course, they were expecting to shift their revenue to Loot Box microtransactions, and we all know how that turned out, haha).

So, yeah R* will need to have mucho sources of revenue extenders for RDRO, but there's no way an exclusive map for sale will be part of it. If they have any map expansions, they will be free.

I just feel RDR Online will be what they expected GTA Online to be. Popular, but just that. Not the huge success it turned out to be that they struggled to handle at first. I feel like RDR Online will be a lot quieter, with frequent updates, sure. But they'll still have GTA Online as their major cash flow. But maybe I'm wrong.

[horns]

I'm going to take a guess about the eastern side of the map before it's too late.  I've stared at this gif from gameplay trailer #2 for a little too long.  Feels like the shape is different than the leaked map.  Clemens cove got longer, St Denis shifted a little, and a big island lies east of Annesburg.  There's too much detail on that island to be simply for background purposes.  Maybe the island near Van Horn was made larger.  

 

 

[DuPz0r]

45 minutes ago, horns said:

I'm going to take a guess about the eastern side of the map before it's too late.  I've stared at this gif from gameplay trailer #2 for a little too long.  Feels like the shape is different than the leaked map.  Clemens cove got longer, St Denis shifted a little, and a big island lies east of Annesburg.  There's too much detail on that island to be simply for background purposes.  Maybe the island near Van Horn was made larger.  

 

 

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

 

 

We had a huge discussion about this some pages back. We're all in agreement that it is the Eastern part of the map looking down over Balsam Rise, towards the south.

 

 

We've also dicussed the possibility of more landmass being added since the leaked map. as The Lannahechee river seem thinner and the broad space between that coastline and the Roanoke River seems to have grown substantially.

 

Either that or the map is truly massive and we've miss-judged the scale this entire time. And honestly i think a lot of us have to some extent. I think in our minds the map is half the scale it will actually be. R*'s camera tricks make everything seem closer than it is.

Edited October 10, 2018 by DuPz0r

[Mynameisnobody]

I can't wait to go on Penitentiary Isle  I guess you can go inside ! Maybe at some point you will get to jail on this island !

[sabbathfan]

14 hours ago, Cutter De Blanc said:

I wouldn't have thought they would have created North Yankton just for the sake of a North Yankton type scenario either but here we are

 

The place even has easter eggs

They didn't create North Yankton just for that sake. It was also to test out making a snowy area to then use again in future, like in Red Dead Redemption 2 for example. I can't prove this, but I'm very sure about it. They introduce snow in GTA and low and behold snow is a large feature of the following game. That's not a coincidence. Rockstar, like any good developer, are always thinking a few steps ahead.

[Pink Pineapple]

1 hour ago, Chinese Takeout said:

You're right, they will need a constant stream of content to lure people to RDRO, and keep them there, so they can maximize their revenue, and I could see them *possibly* releasing a map that is exclusive to online players, but if you're suggesting that they would charge for that map, I disagree with you. Most Triple-A developers stopped charging for map expansions halfway through this gen because they learned it fractures their userbase, and then has a negative impact on their revenue. This was expressly why EA didnt charge for any of the Battlefront 2 expansions (of course, they were expecting to shift their revenue to Loot Box microtransactions, and we all know how that turned out, haha).

So, yeah R* will need to have mucho sources of revenue extenders for RDRO, but there's no way an exclusive map for sale will be part of it. If they have any map expansions, they will be free.

I'm not sure if they'd charge for it, level lock it, or have it free and open just to be able to add more safehouses and activities. I'm just fully expecting them to screw over single player and make some really good content exclusive to online.