Mapping Red Dead Redemption 2! Landmark Analysis Thread

[Pudgehodge]

6 minutes ago, Cutter De Blanc said:

I'm scratching my head to think if we've seen any other shots of Cumberland forest to say if the trees fit there

They cold fit in a lot of places I think. Basically anywhere where there is a patch of trees in/ around West Elizabeth or Cumberland Forest.

 

Little Creek area:

https://i.imgur.com/g91ZaCH.png

 

Around Cumberland Forest:

https://i.imgur.com/3DJP2xD.png

https://i.imgur.com/umccGoQ.png

https://i.imgur.com/j5KZUct.png

https://i.imgur.com/Qb3hUEq.png

 

Around Strawberry:

https://i.imgur.com/rmPZZxr.jpg

 

Or could just as easily be Tall Trees. Seeing how improved Great Plains looks and the overall density of foliage, it makes sense that it could be the new and improved Tall Trees.

[Svip]

@BretMaverick777, I presented my point inaccurately.  If the region in the north east of the map is based on the Appalachian mountains, which I concur it sure as hell looks like, it doesn't make sense that they are called 'East Grizzlies'.  I've heard that name a few times now, but I don't think we've accurately associated it with Roanoke Ridge.

I don't believe there is a real location called 'East Rockies'.  But calling RDR's version of the Appalachian mountains East Grizzlies is completely ridiculous to me; how would settlers coming from the East call a mountain range they met the 'East Grizzlies'?  If it still is called that in the game, and Tennessee exists in this world, then - while Roanoke Ridge is based on the Appalachian mountains - East Grizzlies and Appalachian mountains are two distinct areas in this world.

That's what I was trying to say, albeit not as precisely.

[ivarblaauw]

Why scale increase and how would it work?:

Since the Xbox One X plays RDR1 you can literally see the entire map. At no point you feel like you can be lost etc. Drawdistance and the 'no distance fog' take that vibe away from the map.

 

The map scale of RDR2 is huge, my guess a scale of 2, this would make the area of RDR1 4x larger and for example the town of Armadillo would literally be in the middle of the desert, in stead if being a short ride away from a huge river or green lush ground. 

 

An upscale of the map would only be in terms of the actual ground. There would be more space for trees, cacti and other vegetation, but the towns and structures would retain the same size. Distances between the locations would indeed be increased, but the locations itself would still be highly recognizable. 

 

Some guesses from my side of the river:

The large tree shot is taken in the valley west from West Elizabeth/North of New Austin. A valley untamed by western civilization and home to native tribes. 

 

The church shot is taken south of St. Denis, in the woods on the other side of Flat Iron Lake. The church looks spanish from origin and well it seems to fit imo. 

 

The mountains north of New Austin lead right into the unseen valley, but the valley will act as a three state point: south & west will be New Austin, north will be Ambarino and eastern part will be West Elizabeth.

 

Map borders will literally be mountains we can't see behind and we can't traverse over.

 

Shoot away in a civilized matter love to hear your thoughts, even if I am proven wrong

Edited October 14, 2018 by ivarblaauw

[cremefraiche]

Have any other games faced a similar issue in terms of an upscaled/rescaled map? Can't think of any off the top of my head, but could be interesting to note how other developers have approached it. 

 

Not that Rockstar are known for sticking to conventional methods, by any means

Edited October 14, 2018 by cremefraiche
typo

[ivarblaauw]

5 minutes ago, cremefraiche said:

Have any other games faced a similar issue in terms of an upscaled/rescaled map? Can't think of any off the top of my head, but could be interesting to note how other developers have approached it. 

 

Not that Rockstar are known for sticking to conventional methods, by any means

Yeah a lot of strategy games did in with their remasters, but those maps were literally rebuild from 2D to 3D. 

 

We know R* reimagined Los Santos and Liberty City, keeping key points and locations, but changing the rest.

 

Keep in mind that for RDR, they mostly have to change the world and add vegetation, not change the size of towns etc.

 

American Truck Simulator and The Crew 2 changed their scale and revamped their maps entirely in comparison with their previous title

Edited October 14, 2018 by ivarblaauw

[MarlboroMan1995]

I’m becoming convinced on the trees. It had been brought up before that they may be sequoia or redwood trees and I thought their range was only on the upper west coast line in the U.S. 

 

Concerning the Church ruins shot, there was a strong Spanish presence  along the Gulf of Mexico long before the founding of the U.S. I searched for any ruins in present day Louisiana (lemonye) or along the gulf and nothing from that era that is preserved today resembles the Church ruins in the shot. My guess is then it would have to be south of st. Denis. 

 

[ivarblaauw]

4 minutes ago, MarlboroMan1995 said:

I’m becoming convinced on the trees. It had been brought up before that they may be sequoia or redwood trees and I thought their range was only on the upper west coast line in the U.S. 

 

Concerning the Church ruins shot, there was a strong Spanish presence  along the Gulf of Mexico long before the founding of the U.S. I searched for any ruins in present day Louisiana (lemonye) or along the gulf and nothing from that era that is preserved today resembles the Church ruins in the shot. My guess is then it would have to be south of st. Denis. 

 

Just as I thought  would make the most sens in my opinion. 

 

about rescale in games:

- The Crew 2 in comparison with 1. Completely revamped the map

- American Truck Simulator, rescaled map by a lot in a new update

- Battalion 1944 scaled characters and changed all structures accordingly

Edited October 14, 2018 by ivarblaauw

[MarlboroMan1995]

@ivarblaauw Back on the Church ruins, I found some built in the same style that can be found in California and Texas. Most were in desert areas but some did have deciduous trees surrounding them. Maybe this could be a possible extension to NA? There are a few, however, that style in Florida; but that Church in reality does not fit into Lemonye or the leaked map anywhere. Don’t forget the “Spanish island” either! Could be there! Did find many images though of similar ruins in Mexico and they were in forested areas.

 

I also checked out the leaves on the tree in that image. They appear to be maple/sycamore leaves. These trees are all across North America and that led me no where lol. 

[Orfan Loom]

If they did upscale the RDR1 map. I don't think they made towns and cities bigger or wider. I think they only upscaled unpopulated areas around towns and cities: deserts, plains, forests etc.

And it's not like they took the whole map and multiplied it by 2.

It's more like Great plains is 1,5 times bigger, Tall Trees is 2 times bigger, Thieves Landing is the same, Henningan's Stead is 1,4 times bigger etc.

 

So basically it varies. 

Edited October 14, 2018 by Orfan Loom

[DarkDayz]

What's the most up to date fan map we have? 

 

Personally can't see how Mexico can return currently. I think they'll leave it out. 

 

But that doesn't explain this from the first gameplay trailer 'sweeping deserts' - can anybody explain. Just don't see this being north of blackwater either.

 

https://imgur.com/a/JNpk3RO

 

Edited October 14, 2018 by darkdayz
adding image

[SeniorDerp]

3 hours ago, ivarblaauw said:

Yeah a lot of strategy games did in with their remasters, but those maps were literally rebuild from 2D to 3D. 

 

We know R* reimagined Los Santos and Liberty City, keeping key points and locations, but changing the rest.

 

Keep in mind that for RDR, they mostly have to change the world and add vegetation, not change the size of towns etc.

I’ve felt for a while that I couldn’t care less if the WE and NA portion of the map in RDR2 is canon. I really hope they reimagine the old map and improve upon it

[Nutduster]

1 hour ago, Orfan Loom said:

If they did upscale the RDR1 map. I don't think they made towns and cities bigger or wider. I think they only upscaled unpopulated areas around towns and cities: deserts, plains, forests etc.

And it's not like they took the whole map and multiplied it by 2.

It's more like Great plains is 1,5 times bigger, Tall Trees is 2 times bigger, Thieves Landing is the same, Henningan's Stead is 1,4 times bigger etc.

 

So basically it varies. 

 

I'd be willing to bet they're not doing any of that, though.  What you are describing is basically as complex as making a whole new map.  All the old land features fit together and you can't just stretch them out.  As soon as you add some blank space in one area, it would have a ripple effect across the entire map, displacing everything and demanding you rebuild everything basically from scratch.  And again, I think there is serious nostalgia for that old map - they aren't going to bring it back and then change it so drastically that you can't recognize it.  It's not as if the towns are the only things people remember - many of the geographic features stick in your head after you play the original game enough.

 

I believe there will be minor changes, perhaps quite a lot of them, but the basic size, composition and relative location of the map will be exactly as it was.

Edited October 14, 2018 by Nutduster

[ivarblaauw]

10 minutes ago, Nutduster said:

I believe there will be minor changes, perhaps quite a lot of them, but the basic size, composition and relative location of the map will be exactly as it was.

I agree with almost everything, except the basic size. However I feel like the rest is spot on

[pjw]

With regards to the discussion on how the return of New Austin will be handled, "Will it be up scaled?", "Will it be redone entirely?" etc.

Look at what we've seen of Blackwater and the Great Plains region from the RDR 2 trailers already. I think this will give us a reasonable idea as to how New Austin will have been updated for RDR2.

 

(Credit goes to Reddit user "AgentClucky")

 

 

 

 

 

[JonRenemy]

Amazed as always about the work on these maps. I missed a lot of this one unlike GTA V which I seen coming together so well. Can't wait to see how close it is to the final map now

[Dougie Jones]

47 minutes ago, pjw said:

With regards to the discussion on how the return of New Austin will be handled, "Will it be up scaled?", "Will it be redone entirely?" etc.

Look at what we've seen of Blackwater and the Great Plains region from the RDR 2 trailers already. I think this will give us a reasonable idea as to how New Austin will have been updated for RDR2.

 

(Credit goes to Reddit user "AgentClucky")

 

 

 

 

 

This is excellent. Would like to see more comparisons like this.

[SneakyDeaky]

13 minutes ago, Dougie Jones said:

This is excellent. Would like to see more comparisons like this.

Here's a quick Blackwater comparison




The buildings all look a lot taller to me, but not as wide? The theater in the first game seems to have 3 windows instead of two?

Edited October 14, 2018 by SneakyDeaky

[bakerach]

7 hours ago, Svip said:

@BretMaverick777, I presented my point inaccurately.  If the region in the north east of the map is based on the Appalachian mountains, which I concur it sure as hell looks like, it doesn't make sense that they are called 'East Grizzlies'.  I've heard that name a few times now, but I don't think we've accurately associated it with Roanoke Ridge.

I don't believe there is a real location called 'East Rockies'.  But calling RDR's version of the Appalachian mountains East Grizzlies is completely ridiculous to me; how would settlers coming from the East call a mountain range they met the 'East Grizzlies'?  If it still is called that in the game, and Tennessee exists in this world, then - while Roanoke Ridge is based on the Appalachian mountains - East Grizzlies and Appalachian mountains are two distinct areas in this world.

That's what I was trying to say, albeit not as precisely.

The name is odd, but the Eastern Grizzlies are almost certainly the Appalachian Mountains.  The way Rockstar has described the mountains lines up 100% with the Appalachians, and all of the names in that region come from Appalachia. 

 

The "Eastern Grizzlies" name is the only thing that doesn't make total sense at first, but it does make sense when you think about this being a game and not a recreation of real life.  Things are condensed, combined, and rearranged to fit the design they're going for.

[Dougie Jones]

Lookin' good @SneakyDeaky, gotta love the magic mountains that disappear in RDR lol.

Edited October 14, 2018 by Dougie Jones

[Jabalous]

42 minutes ago, SneakyDeaky said:

Here's a quick Blackwater comparison




The buildings all look a lot taller to me, but not as wide? The theater in the first game seems to have 3 windows instead of two?

That's a significant change, the mountain in the background I mean. Same thing will definitely happen to New Austin and Nuevo Paraiso, placement and scale wise. Rockstar has more power at their hands this time for them not to simply remaster RDR's map, but instead to actually remake it while retaining the atmosphere and overall biome transition. That's what matters, and not if a rock or a tree is in the same place, added or removed. 

Edited October 14, 2018 by Jabalous

[MuffinMcFluffin]

1 hour ago, pjw said:

With regards to the discussion on how the return of New Austin will be handled, "Will it be up scaled?", "Will it be redone entirely?" etc.

Look at what we've seen of Blackwater and the Great Plains region from the RDR 2 trailers already. I think this will give us a reasonable idea as to how New Austin will have been updated for RDR2.

 

(Credit goes to Reddit user "AgentClucky")

 

 

 

 

 

Great work, but the two cameras are way different. I'm sure that RDR 2 has more of a fish-eye lens going on, so objects in the distance are closer than they appear.

 

I'm not saying things aren't necessarily upscaled, but I also don't know if these shots are the true indicator because of the two different in-game cameras.

[bakerach]

8 hours ago, Cutter De Blanc said:

I'm scratching my head to think if we've seen any other shots of Cumberland forest to say if the trees fit there

I will say, the screenshot reminds me of the rainforest in Tennessee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_temperate_rainforest
 

I lived there for a few years when I was a child

I live in the Blue Ridge/Smokies area of the Appalachians, and the forest in this screenshot is far too open to be in what R* is calling the "Eastern Grizzlies," aka the Appalachians.

 

This looks much more like California to me.  The undergrowth isn't nearly as dense out West as it is in the East, so I'd wager this screenshot comes from Tall Trees or somewhere nearby.

Edited October 14, 2018 by bakerach
Spelling

[Tonesta]

2 hours ago, Nutduster said:

 

I'd be willing to bet they're not doing any of that, though.  What you are describing is basically as complex as making a whole new map.  All the old land features fit together and you can't just stretch them out.  As soon as you add some blank space in one area, it would have a ripple effect across the entire map, displacing everything and demanding you rebuild everything basically from scratch.  And again, I think there is serious nostalgia for that old map - they aren't going to bring it back and then change it so drastically that you can't recognize it.  It's not as if the towns are the only things people remember - many of the geographic features stick in your head after you play the original game enough.

 

I believe there will be minor changes, perhaps quite a lot of them, but the basic size, composition and relative location of the map will be exactly as it was.

 

Whereas whilst I would agree that upscaling/reimagining the old map would be almost as complex as making a whole new map - I still think they'll have done it.

 

Firstly - they've had eight years to do so!

 

Secondly - they're building something for a next generation of technology, which a much longer draw distance. And they still want to make it feel epic. There's a danger that everything in the old map will feel too small and too compact when you can see that much further.

 

Thirdly - for every player that's wanting to play exactly the same map because they're feeling nostalgic, there's probably another player who would think that, after eight years of development and technical progress, something bigger and bolder should be expected. Basically thinking "If I wanted to play the exact same map as RDR1 - I should go play RDR1". With RDR2, they want to be able recognize the old map, but see it reimagined on a much grander scale.  

Also - if Rockstar only sell RDR2 to the same people that bought RDR1......then it won't be a Rockstar-level commercial success, and would probably spell the end of the franchise. Why would you spend eight years making a game that sells 15m, when you could spend the same time making the new GTA which sells 100m? RDR1 nostalgics will buy the game anyway, Rockstar need to appeal to a new crowd with a new epic.

[Jabalous]

21 minutes ago, Tonesta said:

Thirdly - for every player that's wanting to play exactly the same map because they're feeling nostalgic, there's probably another player who would think that, after eight years of development and technical progress, something bigger and bolder should be expected. Basically thinking "If I wanted to play the exact same map as RDR1 - I should go play RDR1". With RDR2, they want to be able recognize the old map, but see it reimagined on a much grander scale.  

Also - if Rockstar only sell RDR2 to the same people that bought RDR1......then it won't be a Rockstar-level commercial success, and would probably spell the end of the franchise. Why would you spend eight years making a game that sells 15m, when you could spend the same time making the new GTA which sells 100m? RDR1 nostalgics will buy the game anyway, Rockstar need to appeal to a new crowd with a new epic.

Rockstar could completely remake New Austin in a way that it's unrecognizable from RDR and yet players will play it, and why bother complaining, or even think that they won't buy it. It's silly to think so. Anyone who wants to play Red Dead will pay to the play the game, in any shape or form that New Austin will be in, even if it doesn't exist. But hey, it does exist! 

Edited October 14, 2018 by Jabalous

[Nutduster]

46 minutes ago, Tonesta said:

 

Whereas whilst I would agree that upscaling/reimagining the old map would be almost as complex as making a whole new map - I still think they'll have done it.

 

Firstly - they've had eight years to do so!

 

Secondly - they're building something for a next generation of technology, which a much longer draw distance. And they still want to make it feel epic. There's a danger that everything in the old map will feel too small and too compact when you can see that much further.

 

Thirdly - for every player that's wanting to play exactly the same map because they're feeling nostalgic, there's probably another player who would think that, after eight years of development and technical progress, something bigger and bolder should be expected. Basically thinking "If I wanted to play the exact same map as RDR1 - I should go play RDR1". With RDR2, they want to be able recognize the old map, but see it reimagined on a much grander scale.  

Also - if Rockstar only sell RDR2 to the same people that bought RDR1......then it won't be a Rockstar-level commercial success, and would probably spell the end of the franchise. Why would you spend eight years making a game that sells 15m, when you could spend the same time making the new GTA which sells 100m? RDR1 nostalgics will buy the game anyway, Rockstar need to appeal to a new crowd with a new epic.

 

Don't disagree on any particular point here, except to say that I don't really see the point of using the old map *at all* if it's not going to be largely the same as before.  This isn't a situation like old Liberty City vs. new, where the old one was so minimalist and old-technology as to be simply not up to modern standards.  They had to rebuild that, and so GTA IV's Liberty City was literally just a new map.  RDR's map is pretty big, and attractive and well-designed even by current gen standards; simply redoing the poly mesh, updating the textures and replacing all the assets (mostly foliage) with better ones would make a map that IMO is one of the best around and looks at least as good as GTA V's map, if not quite rivaling what we have seen of RDR2's new areas.  Add in the fact that using the old map creates some questionable issues with the RDR canon, and it seems to me that the main reason they would bring it back is that it's an easy way to extend the size of the new game and indulge in some nostalgia for a classic that isn't yet all that old. If they were just going to remake it all anyway, they might as well have just made a new area completely instead of rebooting New Austin.

 

The comparison screenshots above, and that glimpse of Armadillo, all suggest to me that they've changed very little.  Personally I think it would be just fine to bring it in as is.  I've replayed RDR pretty recently and it didsn't feel too small or lack for epicness.  Of course we will get more of those qualities from the new areas, maybe it's not such a big deal if the old map is flatter and smaller, relatively speaking.

Edited October 14, 2018 by Nutduster

[jdogg17873]

https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/10/14/red-dead-redemption-2-file-size/

 

looks like the the actual file size is about 90GB - that is huge compared to any other game being released right now

 

this map is going to be huge

[Tonesta]

1 hour ago, Nutduster said:

 

Don't disagree on any particular point here, except to say that I don't really see the point of using the old map *at all* if it's not going to be largely the same as before.  This isn't a situation like old Liberty City vs. new, where the old one was so minimalist and old-technology as to be simply not up to modern standards.  They had to rebuild that, and so GTA IV's Liberty City was literally just a new map.  RDR's map is pretty big, and attractive and well-designed even by current gen standards; simply redoing the poly mesh, updating the textures and replacing all the assets (mostly foliage) with better ones would make a map that IMO is one of the best around and looks at least as good as GTA V's map, if not quite rivaling what we have seen of RDR2's new areas.  Add in the fact that using the old map creates some questionable issues with the RDR canon, and it seems to me that the main reason they would bring it back is that it's an easy way to extend the size of the new game and indulge in some nostalgia for a classic that isn't yet all that old. If they were just going to remake it all anyway, they might as well have just made a new area completely instead of rebooting New Austin.

 

The comparison screenshots above, and that glimpse of Armadillo, all suggest to me that they've changed very little.  Personally I think it would be just fine to bring it in as is.  I've replayed RDR pretty recently and it didsn't feel too small or lack for epicness.  Of course we will get more of those qualities from the new areas, maybe it's not such a big deal if the old map is flatter and smaller, relatively speaking.

 

I think the highlighted phrase above is a succinct version of why I think R* will revamp the old map.

 

They're just not a company that cuts corners at all. And I don't think they're a company that would release a map that (in their mind) contains sections that are even 1% below the grandeur of the rest of the map. Even for nostalgic purposes (for example - they didn't recreate Grove Street precisely. It still had the same feel, but it was revamped to fit the quality of the rest of the map)

 

But happy to agree to disagree. We'll know the answer within two weeks at the latest!

[Pudgehodge]

5 hours ago, darkdayz said:

What's the most up to date fan map we have? 

 

Personally can't see how Mexico can return currently. I think they'll leave it out. 

 

But that doesn't explain this from the first gameplay trailer 'sweeping deserts' - can anybody explain. Just don't see this being north of blackwater either.

 

https://imgur.com/a/JNpk3RO

 

That image could very easily be part of New Austin, or even possibly part of an area above New Austin if there is a map expansion beyond the old map's boundaries. 

 

I searched high and low in RDR for that screenshot location. I found some similar locations, but I think even if it is New Austin it isn't the exact same.. some of the big rock formations and even background mountains are likely different from what we saw in RDR. The main think I was looking for was a location with BOTH of those tall plants we see in the image, and the only place in New Austin that has that is around Gaptooth Ridge (the border from Rathskeller Fork down to around Benedict Pass is where the cactus and that other plant both exist together (as one area transitions into another), so I think it's likely somewhere around there, or possibly in a new area north of Rathskeller Fork/ Cholla Springs.

 

It's also possible that it's in Mexico, but I actually think it resembles New Austin MUCH more than anywhere in Nuevo Paraiso (in colour, plant life, landscape, landmarks, etc.).

 

This is the closest I could get for a match (forgive the terrible screen capture quality) in New Austin in terms of most/ all of the most noticeable landmarks being there (no cacti in this image, but this area is just outside of where the cacti stop, so the cacti area could easily have been expanded in the new game).

Some things are off of course (like the angle, height, rock shapes & size, some differences in the mountains and hills in the terrain, etc.), but I think it could be 1 of several locations in New Austin that look similar to the screenshot.

 

This image is actually looking west, and there are other locations/ perspectives nearby that look south towards the Mexico mountains that could also be candidates for comparing, this is just the one that was closest when it comes to all of the rocks and hills being there.

[bakerach]

There's no good evidence of Mexico, except of course the Mexican gang, references to "south of the border," multiple credible sources stating that Mexico is in the game, and of course the actual promotional photos and videos released by R* clearly showing Mexican landscapes.

 

But yeah, besides that there's no good evidence.

[jimmybrooks]

In addition to the to the RDR against RDR2 revamped shots i wanted to show off the birch trees area, but i can't find a shot of it in RDR by now, but i'm sure i have seen it there somewhere .. is it actually in Hennigan's Stead? One of the rare shots from New Austen?