Mapping Red Dead Redemption 2! Landmark Analysis Thread

[TexasOdysseus]

4 hours ago, Chinese Takeout said:

It's possible that New Austin wasn't a state in 1911, but I think the evidence is slim. In 1911 (IRL) the only states left to be added to the contiguous 48 were New Mexico and Arizona - and they were added in the beginning of 1912. So, it's possible, but as I have been replaying RDR1 over the last couple weeks, I've been paying very close attention to the dialogue, and while nothing specific is said, there is enough roundabout discussion to indicate that New Austin is a full-blown state in 1911/RDR1 (in my opinion).

I've been replaying it too, trying to pick up on tidbits. But I also don't want to over-read into those would-be clues....I think the dialogue could be deliberately vague in the sense of the time and place and the people.

 

Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but with the exception of *maybe* high Cochinay, that ENTIRE map of RDR1 could be an amalgam of AZ and NM.... I went to school in Prescott and have traversed much of both those states...I could create a map for RDR1 solely from those two states. Point being---let's not get too wrapped around the axle on this state/territory region. 

[Tonesta]

So question for all the hardcore mappers on here - do we feel that we yet have a good idea of the scale of RDR2?

 

We've seen a bunch of panoramic shots, but always with clever angles and/or lighting. Otherwise it's been a whole bunch of close-up screens and videos. And, of course, there's no aerial shots and few roads with which to accurately gauge scale (compared to e.g. GTA).

 

Have we been able to work out how far it is from, say, Valentine to Horseshoe Overlook - comparative to Rockstar's other games e.g. RDR1 or GTAV?

 

From everything we've read and heard, it's clear that this game world is going to be colossal.

What I don't have confidence in is whether this is going to be because a) everything is upscaled so towns are really far apart, and there's going to be a teeming landscape in between with NPCs and random events, but the map is just going to be the leak (+ New Austin) or b) whether the scale is roughly equivalent to RDR and therefore we have to expect more map than has been revealed in most directions (over and above New Austin)?

 

 

[TexasOdysseus]

3 hours ago, BretMaverick777 said:

And there's nothing in the "Five States" discussion that requires there to be 5 states at the beginning of the game; just by the

end.  A fairly common plot device in Westerns involves territories pushing for statehood...we could see that happening in RDR2 with New Austin.  And/or West Elizabeth and Ambarino, for that matter.  Pretty safe guess that Lemoyne and New Hanover are already "veteran" states, but the other three seem to be in that borderland between wilderness and civilization, which is certainly a thematic element here.

Well, my friend, you've done ti again--made me think! I'm posting stream of consciousness stuff now, but that's a damn good point... imagine the protagonists finding themselves in the midst of a statehood battle AND then there's Cornwall and Dutch's gang...SO many storylines!

[Nutduster]

Not to mention, given that New Austin is highly fictionalized, the specific dates of statehood for AZ and NM really have no bearing on when New Austin fictionally became a state.  It's already some kind of amalgam of at least two states, if not more, and exists in a heavily modified version of the United States and reality in general.  It is supposed to evoke the last days of the western frontier, but not every last detail has to be the same, as many of the big ones already are not.

Just now, Tonesta said:

So question for all the hardcore mappers on here - do we feel that we yet have a good idea of the scale of RDR2?

 

 

My feeling is that this time around Rockstar has done a good job of keeping this information mostly under wraps.  People are still speculating about major chunks of the map and still don't know how much (or even if) the leaked map was scaled up.  For being so close to release, there is still more we don't know than we do know, and the overall scale is one of those, IMO.

[albinobuffalo96]

33 minutes ago, Fluffy Sock said:

California on the other hand, that's more problematic. Maybe a gold rush type theme in a future RDR game could include a state partially based on California (not the coast, so big cities are out of the question) and they'd have to rename that. I guess they have some ideas

Gaptooth Ridge was modeled after Southeastern California

[Len Lfc]

2 hours ago, DuPz0r said:

Yeah it isn't the first time R* have made game worlds that do not fill the "square space" fully. But it does seem like a big waste if they do not. Either way, i dont mind, i know the scale of what we've seen is enough, and pretty dense so at the end, if we only get what we've mapped here, that fine with me.

To be honest I hate square maps. Feels so unnatural to me. San Andreas was the biggest offender of that. Pretty must a perfect square island, almost. That's why I loved RDR's map, it felt like a natural landlocked location. To be honest, I'm not even a huge fan of GTA maps being an island in an ocean, but then I'm super nitpicky lol

[HockeyMike24]

13 minutes ago, Nutduster said:

Not to mention, given that New Austin is highly fictionalized, the specific dates of statehood for AZ and NM really have no bearing on when New Austin fictionally became a state.  It's already some kind of amalgam of at least two states, if not more, and exists in a heavily modified version of the United States and reality in general.  It is supposed to evoke the last days of the western frontier, but not every last detail has to be the same, as many of the big ones already are not.

 

My feeling is that this time around Rockstar has done a good job of keeping this information mostly under wraps.  People are still speculating about major chunks of the map and still don't know how much (or even if) the leaked map was scaled up.  For being so close to release, there is still more we don't know than we do know, and the overall scale is one of those, IMO.

 

Yeah, GTA V was mapped almost perfectly before release. I feel like they really don't want us to see something, or are just getting better at keeping secrets.

[Tonesta]

25 minutes ago, Nutduster said:

 

My feeling is that this time around Rockstar has done a good job of keeping this information mostly under wraps.  People are still speculating about major chunks of the map and still don't know how much (or even if) the leaked map was scaled up.  For being so close to release, there is still more we don't know than we do know, and the overall scale is one of those, IMO.

That's my sense as well, but it's fairly extraordinary. Wondering if anyone disagrees and feels they've been able to triangulate themselves a sense of scale for any part of the map?

 

If so, given how brilliant people on here are at mapping the world, and the fact we've now had, what, five trailers and 100s of screenshots to work with - the fact that even the places we've seen a lot, and know well (e.g. Valentine  & the Heartlands), we can't really scale is a credit to how well Rockstar have kept things to themselves this time around.......

[Pink Pineapple]

11 hours ago, IG_ said:

At this point I have very little doubt that we're all going to be jaws to the floor blown away when:

The game comes out and we see the map
OR
The map is leaked before hand lol (More likely)

It will be Rockstar's biggest 'reveal' to date because they've kept so much hidden on purpose.
 

 

It's probably not a good idea to expect much more than we already know about since they don't have anything to gain by keeping large areas hidden this close to release. For GTA V, there weren't any map surprises. We knew almost everything about the map 4 and a half months before it released. That worked out well for them so I don't see why they'd change anything for this game.

[Cutter De Blanc]

You can put me in the camp of people that thinks the old map hasn't been upscaled at all.

[DuPz0r]

Who here is tempted to play without the minimap? I know many of us here will have no problems finding their way around from any point on the map...

 

I'm just curious. I know it will probably be impossible to play the entire game without it if you cant see objective icons, but it would be cool just to wander freely without looking at a minimap.

Edited October 12, 2018 by DuPz0r

[Cutter De Blanc]

1 minute ago, DuPz0r said:

Who here is tempted to play without the minimap? I know many of us here will have no problems finding their way around from any point on the map...

 

I'm just curious. I know it will probably be impossible to play the entire game without it if you cant see objective icons, but it would be cool just to wander freely without looking at a minimap.

Probably by day 3 or 4 I will set the minimap to blips only. I always prefer knowing how to get from point a to point b without the assistance of the map

[Im2akillerfish]

2 minutes ago, DuPz0r said:

Who here is tempted to play without the minimap? I know many of us here will have no problems finding their way around from any point on the map...

 

I'm just curious. I know it will probably be impossible to play the entire game without it if you cant see objective icons, but it would be cool just to wander freely without looking at a minimap.

Didn't RDR1 have an option for blips only like most GTAs have? I remember that turning off the minimap in RDR1 also removed Deadeye and horse stamina HUD, which may not be a problem here.

[DuPz0r]

3 minutes ago, Cutter De Blanc said:

Probably by day 3 or 4 I will set the minimap to blips only. I always prefer knowing how to get from point a to point b without the assistance of the map

You learn more by looking at your surroundings than you do starring at a map too. That's why half the kids these days cant find their way home without a sat-nav/google map assistance!

Edited October 12, 2018 by DuPz0r

[Chinese Takeout]

8 minutes ago, DuPz0r said:

You learn more by looking at your surroundings than you do staring at a map too. That's why half the kids these days cant find their way home without a sat-nav/google map assistance!

Preach!

 

I plan on turning the minimap off as soon as it let's me and then -in all my mapping hubris...feeling like I already know every square inch of the map- see how many minutes go by before I'm hopelessly lost somewhere in Cumberland Forest, and I turn it back on while wiping the tears from my eyes and sniffling. And then I run into Dutch, and he's all..."have you been crying...buh-dee?"

[Mild Phil Hickok]

20 minutes ago, DuPz0r said:

Who here is tempted to play without the minimap? I know many of us here will have no problems finding their way around from any point on the map...

 

I'm just curious. I know it will probably be impossible to play the entire game without it if you cant see objective icons, but it would be cool just to wander freely without looking at a minimap.

I recall seeing in one of the previews that there is the option to enable a compass instead of using the mini-map. So I'll be going with that.

[RadioActiveLobster]

Copies are in the wild (assuming this isn't fake) so full map might be out soon...

 

 

Edited October 12, 2018 by RadioActiveLobster

[Pink Pineapple]

If they don't at least show the front and back of the case, then I'm just assuming it's fake. I ain't got time for this foolishness.

[TigerWoodsLibido]

Bad cut job on the bottom.  Def a fake and probly a cheap attempt to get follows.

[nubcaker]

17 minutes ago, RadioActiveLobster said:

Copies are in the wild (assuming this isn't fake) so full map might be out soon...

 

 

That's fake. Look how badly they cut the cover photo:



See the white line?

[Nutduster]

White lines top and bottom.  That's fake AF.

[Cutter De Blanc]

The image also doesn't appear to be centered correctly. There's a noticeable bit more negative space on the right hand side

[seegkilla]

[nubcaker]

5 minutes ago, seegkilla said:

Welp... Guess all we have to do now is ask one of them fellas to show us a screenshot of the map, eh?

edit: nevermind it's fake

Edited October 12, 2018 by nubcaker

[Mynameisnobody]

from the gameplay video;)

2 minutes ago, seegkilla said:

from the gameplay video;)

This isn't someone actually playing today....but the first gameplay from August 

[HockeyMike24]

I use to have a dev kit for the Xbox 360 and a separately flashed one. The earliest I could ever get a game would be 10-4 days until release, unless times have changed I wouldn't trust anything until the final week.

[Len Lfc]

39 minutes ago, HockeyMike24 said:

I use to have a dev kit for the Xbox 360 and a separately flashed one. The earliest I could ever get a game would be 10-4 days until release, unless times have changed I wouldn't trust anything until the final week.

CVG had GTA V 12 days early. 

[The Jungz]

Spoiler

Just a quick doodle I did earlier today in class on my prediction for the map. Proportions are off, of course, because I'm not that great at drawing.

 

If I'm right about it, this is my goddamn proof y'all haha.

[BretMaverick777]

Couple of new shots from today's Weapons/Guns feature on the RDR2 website. 

 

 

A burley tobacco field.   Possibly in Roanoke Ridge, but seems more likely to be in Scarlett Meadows, due to the flatlands. 

 

And this one's real interesting.

Washed out a good bit by the sepia tones of the DeadEye filter, but this actually looks like a war zone.   There's sandbags and heavy fortifications around this place.   There's a well-guarded gazebo in the background.   The corpses Arthur is laying down are wearing what appears to be combat boots instead of the cowboy boots you'd expect from the game.   There's spanish moss hanging from the trees, which *usually* suggests Bayou Nwa, but could easily be applicable to parts of Mexico...or most of Cuba.  

 

There's this guy.  We know the DeadEye system illuminates vital points on your target, including the brain, which can give your target's head a skull-like appearance.  But what's really going on with this shot?   Honest to god, he looks like he's wearing an anachronistic helmet, and seems to have a weapon strapped to his back...rifle maybe, or some kind of melee weapon.  

 

The setting looks very strange, but I'm wondering if it's showing a flashback to Cuba in the Spanish-American War in 1898.   Could Arthur have been part of the volunteer force, the Rough Riders?   Are these Spanish troops?   Could this be Cuba, or at least Guarma Island -- assuming the tiny island had some role in the Spanish-American War?   What do you y'all think? 

 

[Leon20]

 

Anyone talked about this? Its from the edge magazine.