Mapping Red Dead Redemption 2! Landmark Analysis Thread

[Mirokunite]

Black Bayou! Great find!

 

Also, Ojo del Diablo is an exact copy of the Rainbow Bridge in Utah, and most of Perdido is based on Arches National Park...

The opening of Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade is also in the same place (and time!).

 

Why did Rock Star mix up Mexico and the USA so casually? RDR1 was like the South West turned upside down, with Monument Valley and Utah in Mexico.

 

 

Because Rockstar maps of in game regions are Greatest Hits versions of real life areas. Things that are condensed and key points of a region in the location at hand.

 

RDR1 map was somewhere in the South West near California and north of the Mexican border. Logic would dictate that the game is set in Arizona/New Mexico. But the world pulls elements from the American South West and Colorado. Rockstar essentially went "What are the key settings in a western?" and built a world around it. Not "What did Yuma County, Arizona look like in 1911."

 

The RDR2 map is basically the idea of the American Heartland from the Rockies to Louisiana. A condensed theme park of key biomes and landforms in that region. It's not set in a real state or region. Its just a 'greatest hits' version of the middle of the United States.

 

You can even tie this into something like GTAV. All the player sees is Southern San Andreas. To the player its an island in the middle of the Pacific ocean. But the perspective in the game world its just part of the sate of San Andreas, and not an island. The distances are condensed to the player, but in the perspective of the game world it is a four hour drive from Los Santos to Paleto Bay. Even if it only takes about 8 minutes in real life to do the drive.

 

So in the perspective of the RDR2 world a horse ride from the middle of the Grizzles to New Bordeaux would be a really far distance. But in game it wont take that long to travel that distance. It works in the narrative that the distance is far without bogging down the player with hours on horseback.

 

The goal is to balance realism and fun. All the while making the world seem alive. I'm sure Rockstar could recreate near perfect stretch of land around the US-Mexican border that's a 1,000 square miles. But everything in that patch would look rather samey and spending several real hours getting anywhere would be tiresome. They want the world to look and feel believable, with locations that you could see as actually existing somewhere in this nebulous area.

[Little Big Man]

A nice answer, thanks.

 

I assume some future RDR game will fill in the North West of the map. If that happens we may get a new, improved version of monument valley.

[Mirokunite]

(post got deleted so I'll just summarize)

 

A map set around Montana/Idaho/Wyoming/Utah in the 1880s/70s would be neat. It could tie in range wars, and gold rushes in Native Lands. But the closer you get the timeline to the Civil War the less cartridge firearms you have. Which means black powder, which means longer reloads. But if Rockstar wanted to make a Civil War/California Gold Rush RDR I'm sure they could pull it off. Otherwise I'm sure Ubisoft will use that setting for an Assassins Creed and have it be as sterile as most of their work.

[Little Big Man]

I definately feel there will be a Civil War RDR at some point, obviously extending the East of the map. If they keep going back in time it could take a while to get there, though.

 

There's also the land immediately south of Flat Iron Lake to fill out. Is that supposed to be Mexico, or the USA?

[The Nefarious]

I definately feel there will be a Civil War RDR at some point, obviously extending the East of the map. If they keep going back in time it could take a while to get there, though.

 

There's also the land immediately south of Flat Iron Lake to fill out. Is that supposed to be Mexico, or the USA?

By right it should be the gulf of Mexico but the simple fact of it being a lake dictates that it must be landlocked in some way. Perhaps they'll remedy this in the final version and add in some land joining Scarlet Meadows to West Elizabeth. Flat Iron lake is/was actually one of the strongest indicators of the map being fan made since its shape has also been changed from the first game, although there's little chance of that being the case now. Since it's clearly been changed it could be somewhat similar now to Lake Borgne which opens directly into the GOM. Edited May 9, 2018 by Money Over Bullshit

[Svip]

The body of water that flows around New Bordeaux is named Lannahechee(?) River, plus there is clearly land on the other side, so it's clearly a river. As if a continuation of the San Luis river, punctuated by Flat Iron Lake, which also meets several other rivers.

 

It is very likely that this bigger river flows out into the Mexican Gulf or its equivalent.

[The Nefarious]

The body of water that flows around New Bordeaux is named Lannahechee(?) River, plus there is clearly land on the other side, so it's clearly a river. As if a continuation of the San Luis river, punctuated by Flat Iron Lake, which also meets several other rivers.

 

It is very likely that this bigger river flows out into the Mexican Gulf or its equivalent.

The only land that could be on the other side is Mexico which means that the map is actually more f*cked up than we thought since it would mean that the entire map would pretty much need to exist within real life Texas. Probably best just not to think about it. It really makes you wonder why they didn't base the map on the first game though.

[Svip]

Well... the map for RDR calls New Austin and West Elizabeth for 'Western Border States', meaning to imply that there are Eastern border states.

 

But if Rockstar Games can move Utah to Mexico, why can't they move Louisiana to Texas?

 

The old map is also clear that the land south of the Flat Iron Lake is Mexico, while the land West of the San Luis River (and Sea of Coronado) is the US. You can see the international border marked on that map.

 

I would find it very likely that the piece of land Sea of Coronado borders is supposed to be California, as in there isn't much land between Coronado and the Pacific Ocean.

 

So while New Austin and West Elizabeth is definitely based on Texas and parts of New Mexico, the designers have moved it to basically Arizona.

 

All that being said, it is possible that they made a big change to the map, and got rid of that Lannahechee River, and basically made it the Gulf. Since the land south of it isn't relevant for game play. However, that would make it hard to explain why a bay is called a lake (Flat Iron Lake).

 

Lannahechee River seems to be a reference to the Mississippi, and the direction it flows is also a bit weird.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Svip

[The Nefarious]

Well... the map for RDR calls New Austin and West Elizabeth for 'Western Border States', meaning to imply that there are Eastern border states.

 

But if Rockstar Games can move Utah to Mexico, why can't they move Louisiana to Texas?

 

The old map is also clear that the land south of the Flat Iron Lake is Mexico, while the land West of the San Luis River (and Sea of Coronado) is the US. You can see the international border marked on that map.

 

I would find it very likely that the piece of land Sea of Coronado borders is supposed to be California, as in there isn't much land between Coronado and the Pacific Ocean.

 

So while New Austin and West Elizabeth is definitely based on Texas and parts of New Mexico, the designers have moved it to basically Arizona.

 

All that being said, it is possible that they made a big change to the map, and got rid of that Lannahechee River, and basically made it the Gulf. Since the land south of it isn't relevant for game play. However, that would make it hard to explain why a bay is called a lake (Flat Iron Lake).

 

Lannahechee River seems to be a reference to the Mississippi, and the direction it flows is also a bit weird.

There was a newswire article some time ago where Rockstar mentioned the states that inspired the map. I seem to remember it was Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. What makes you think that California is directly to the west? It's really weird that there is no visible land on the map since it cuts off quite a bit away from the Bayou on the east. I know they didn't want to feature Mexico but why change the map from the first game? It's a retcon no matter what way you look at it, the question is was it intentional or did whoever designed the map simply not pay attention to the previous iteration.

[Svip]

Not all the land, just the land east of Bayou. That land isn't seen at all in the first game. Besides, they also retconned the Flat Iron Lake quite a bit. Although, I am perfectly happy with that. Because the parts they retconned weren't part of the playable map in the first game.

 

As for California being directly to the West of the Sea of Coronado? Well, what else could it be?

Edited May 9, 2018 by Svip

[The Nefarious]

Not all the land, just the land east of Bayou. That land isn't seen at all in the first game. Besides, they also retconned the Flat Iron Lake quite a bit. Although, I am perfectly happy with that. Because the parts they retconned weren't part of the playable map in the first game.

 

As for California being directly to the West of the Sea of Coronado? Well, what else could it be?

It's clearly not a sea so I really don't know why they call it that. They weren't planning for the sequel when they made the first map but the onus should be on the designers of the second map to stay faithful to the original as much as possible. They took too many liberties whereas all they had to do was follow real world geography. Edited May 9, 2018 by Money Over Bullshit

[Mirokunite]

Not all the land, just the land east of Bayou. That land isn't seen at all in the first game. Besides, they also retconned the Flat Iron Lake quite a bit. Although, I am perfectly happy with that. Because the parts they retconned weren't part of the playable map in the first game.

 

As for California being directly to the West of the Sea of Coronado? Well, what else could it be?

 

Well there is that quest called California. John tells Sam "who is at Cueva Seca to just go west to reach California. So it exist somewhere to the west.

 

The area South of West Elizabeth might be Mexico. Land to the east of the Lann- River is probably America. Maybe south of the Bayou the river goes due south off the map.

 

But here is the thing about the map, and I find it hard not to do this. You cannot take the map (especially areas outside of it) at face value. It doesn't make sense nor line up with any real world locations. It's all a matter of suspending disbelief. You'll drive yourself crazy trying to justify or critique the map. What's outside the accessible areas is just fluff.

 

I mean ideally it would be a perfect map that makes sense for all sequels. But given what they have to work with they're making due with what they got.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Mirokunite

[The Nefarious]

 

Not all the land, just the land east of Bayou. That land isn't seen at all in the first game. Besides, they also retconned the Flat Iron Lake quite a bit. Although, I am perfectly happy with that. Because the parts they retconned weren't part of the playable map in the first game.

 

As for California being directly to the West of the Sea of Coronado? Well, what else could it be?

Well there is that quest called California. John tells Sam "who is at Cueva Seca to just go west to reach California. So it exist somewhere to the west.

 

The area South of West Elizabeth might be Mexico. Land to the east of the Lann- River is probably America. Maybe south of the Bayou the river goes due south off the map.

 

But here is the thing about the map, and I find it hard not to do this. You cannot take the map (especially areas outside of it) at face value. It doesn't make sense nor line up with any real world locations. It's all a matter of suspending disbelief. You'll drive yourself crazy trying to justify or critique the map. What's outside the accessible areas is just fluff.

 

I mean ideally it would be a perfect map that makes sense for all sequels. But given what they have to work with they're making due with what they got.

Yeah that's why I said it's best not to think about it

[Svip]

I am pretty confident that the Sea of Coronado is based on the Sea of Cortez, which also known as the Californian Gulf or Gulf of California. Which would make very likely that the Californian state (or whatever its name is in RDR's universe) would be right there.

 

Also notice that the map is somewhat cut off, but so is the San Luis river as it flows south on the map, but it's pretty certain that it flows out into the Pacific ocean, as it flows from the Flat Iron Lake.

 

Of course, all this is sort of a problem in terms of geography and how rivers work. It's safe to assume that the Dakota and Montana rivers flow into the Flat Iron Lake, and we know San Luis River flows from Flat Iron Lake and westward into the Pacific (safe to assume).

 

However, which way does the Lannahechee River flow? If it also flows out of the Flat Iron Lake, then it makes no sense. Rivers don't split, they only merge. Why would water ever flow into the San Luis River when a much larger river was available? The answer is; it wouldn't.

 

Supposing that Rockstar Games are aware of all this, that means the Lannahechee flows westward into the Flat Iron Lake, likely at a much slower pace than San Luis, since a much different amount of water can flow through each river. That would assume that Lannahechee river does not flow out into the Mexican Gulf, but east of the known map (leaked map), it must come from more Northern directions.

 

Although, I have my doubts Rockstar Games are completely aware of this, and Lannahechee river probably flows out of the Flat Iron Lake like San Luis River. But in either case, it should not 'split' just south of the map, because where would that water come from? I mean, it could be, but then - remember - rivers don't split, they merge.

 

Yes there are a few exceptions to this rule, but rivers that split don't split for long (it's usually an indication of a transition period), or usually only around minor obstacles.

[The Nefarious]

I am pretty confident that the Sea of Coronado is based on the Sea of Cortez, which also known as the Californian Gulf or Gulf of California. Which would make very likely that the Californian state (or whatever its name is in RDR's universe) would be right there.

 

Also notice that the map is somewhat cut off, but so is the San Luis river as it flows south on the map, but it's pretty certain that it flows out into the Pacific ocean, as it flows from the Flat Iron Lake.

 

Of course, all this is sort of a problem in terms of geography and how rivers work. It's safe to assume that the Dakota and Montana rivers flow into the Flat Iron Lake, and we know San Luis River flows from Flat Iron Lake and westward into the Pacific (safe to assume).

 

However, which way does the Lannahechee River flow? If it also flows out of the Flat Iron Lake, then it makes no sense. Rivers don't split, they only merge. Why would water ever flow into the San Luis River when a much larger river was available? The answer is; it wouldn't.

 

Supposing that Rockstar Games are aware of all this, that means the Lannahechee flows westward into the Flat Iron Lake, likely at a much slower pace than San Luis, since a much different amount of water can flow through each river. That would assume that Lannahechee river does not flow out into the Mexican Gulf, but east of the known map (leaked map), it must come from more Northern directions.

 

Although, I have my doubts Rockstar Games are completely aware of this, and Lannahechee river probably flows out of the Flat Iron Lake like San Luis River. But in either case, it should not 'split' just south of the map, because where would that water come from? I mean, it could be, but then - remember - rivers don't split, they merge.

 

Yes there are a few exceptions to this rule, but rivers that split don't split for long (it's usually an indication of a transition period), or usually only around minor obstacles.

Yeah so basically it's not safe to assume anything and we should just throw all logic out the window. And California is just called California by the way. Edited May 9, 2018 by Money Over Bullshit

[Little Big Man]

Gaptooth Ridge already shows signs of Californication - Joshua trees, mining, even progressive politics (there's a guy who marries his horse). At any rate, the map can't continue much father west.

 

We'll have a much better idea of how the everything works when the game comes out. We'll be able to stand at the southern point of Scarlett Meadows and look south across the face of the waters.

 

It's that SEern part of the map that's causing all the confusion.

 

 

Someone tell Rockstar that we're tired of this leaked map, we need a new one.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Little Big Man

[Little Big Man]

Jesus, you guys don't need to stop talking just because I join the conversation.

 

This is high school all over again.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Little Big Man

[SneakyDeaky]

Yes, I was really enjoying the conversation!

When we get some new screenshots of some other areas of the map this thread will be bouncing again.

[Mr. Scratch]

I'm honestly surprised we got the entire leaked map years ago, and in decent resolution, no less.

[ivarblaauw]

I don't know if anyone cares at the moment, but the distance from the east of Blackwater to the west of Aurora Basin is about 1200 meters (1600 steps) maybe less.

 

The Cochinay mountains we have seen in the pictures are further away from the Great Plains. I have taken the same tree height as seen in trailer #1 and same draw distance as seen in GTA V. According to this, the distance is around 1800-2200 meters, and is taken closer to the mountains as well) The shot from trailer #3 and the stagecoach robbery is about 2500-3500 meters away from the Cochinay mountains... A significant difference if you tell me. 1.5 upsized is my guess for now, but 2x the size is also possible. This makes me doubt the old map returning tho...

 

Don't believe me? Try it yourself

Edit: at first I made a huge miscalculation, changed it

 

Fun facts: the distance from the man to the house in Trailer #1 is about 350-400 meters. The distance to the treeline closest in the picture around 700 - 900 meters.

 

In short: distance from East Blackwater to West Aurora Basin = 1200 meters in original rdr map

In rdr 2, I can only see the distance from where the man walked. This alone was already 800 - 1000 meters just to the treeline. Which means about 1600-1800 meters to west Aurora Basin. Including Blackwater this will either stay 1600-1800 meters or be even as far as 2400 meters. My guess us the first around 1800 meters... 1.5x the size

Edited May 10, 2018 by ivarblaauw

[Sausache]

I don't know if anyone cares at the moment, but the distance from the east of Blackwater to the west of Aurora Basin is about 1200 meters (1600 steps) maybe less.

 

The Cochinay mountains we have seen in the pictures are further away from the Great Plains. I have taken the same tree height as seen in trailer #1 and same draw distance as seen in GTA V. According to this, the distance is around 1800-2200 meters, and is taken closer to the mountains as well) The shot from trailer #3 and the stagecoach robbery is about 2500-3500 meters away from the Cochinay mountains... A significant difference if you tell me. 1.5 upsized is my guess for now, but 2x the size is also possible. This makes me doubt the old map returning tho...

 

Don't believe me? Try it yourself

Edit: at first I made a huge miscalculation, changed it

 

Fun facts: the distance from the man to the house in Trailer #1 is about 350-400 meters. The distance to the treeline closest in the picture around 700 - 900 meters.

 

In short: distance from East Blackwater to West Aurora Basin = 1200 meters in original rdr map

In rdr 2, I can only see the distance from where the man walked. This alone was already 800 - 1000 meters just to the treeline. Which means about 1600-1800 meters to west Aurora Basin. Including Blackwater this will either stay 1600-1800 meters or be even as far as 2400 meters. My guess us the first around 1800 meters... 1.5x the size

 

I was going to post something like this earlier but changed my mind. Given that you posted this, I'd thought I'd post it now and add some credibility to yours.

 

 

The map that came with a physical copy of GTAV has a grid on it. It was 6x10 units, or 60 total, including a lot of water. The leaked map also came with a similar grid. I counted these out and they came to about 120 not even counting the cut off area of the map in the NE. Rockstar likely makes many sketches of different maps and to help compare them to each other they probably use a universal grid. If we assume this, than we can also assume that GTAV and RDR2 share a grid size. Given that, RDR2 is about twice the size of GTAV.

 

It has been 5 years since Rockstar's last game. Keeping in mind that the span between GTA IV and GTA V was also 5 years, and mapsize increased by like 3-4 times, this is not far fetched at all.

[Little Big Man]

Very interesting. If we ever return to New Austin and Nuevo Paraiso (unlike some people, I see this as being in the distant future), there'll need to be recreated in a bigger scale. For realism and believability, this can really only be a good thing. Although it'll make the Blackwater to Nosalita journey a hell of a trip!

I'm hoping some future version of RDR will recreate the whole huge map, from Civil War battlefields to California gold fields, from Juan's Tortillas to John's Pancakes (in maple syrup).

Edited May 11, 2018 by Little Big Man

[ivarblaauw]

Possible. I would love so!

We never thought about it, but there are no streets or houses whatsoever on the map. Only dots of where they should be. As the map of 2 is densly populated, there would be no location far away in the wild. We know they do want to create this.

Example: six point cabin is about 400 meters from the large town of Valentine. This is a gang hideout... One can literally see the enemies walking around when you would stand in the town.

Making this 700 or even 1000 meters is in a sense more logical.

I'll try today to measure some screenshots, might give more credibility to my theory, or silence it ofcourse xD

 

 

Very interesting. If we ever return to New Austin and Nueva Paraiso (unlike some people, I see this as being in the distant future), there'll need to be recreated in a bigger scale. For realism and believability, this can really only be a good thing. Although it'll make the Blackwater to Nosalita journey a hell of a trip!

I'm hoping some future version of RDR will recreate the whole huge map, from Civil War battlefields to California gold fields, from Juan's Tortillas to John's Pancakes (in maple syrup).

Would f*cking love to see some Civil War battlefields and gold fields (Canyon City anyone?!)
Did you ever use the train in the Red Dead Redemption 1? I personally didn't, as you could get everywhere faster on a horse.

​With a map 5/6x as large as the original, trains would actually make sense. Yeah I can get there on a horse, but it would take me about 90 minutes on horse back... Oh a train, will cut my journey to 30 minutes, or you can skip the trip (making a trip of 1.5 hours, just 1 minute!).
​100 mph could be reached by Steam Locomotives (127.1 mph record in 1905). A horse reaches about 25-30mph.

Edited May 11, 2018 by ivarblaauw

[Mirokunite]

Possible. I would love so!

 

We never thought about it, but there are no streets or houses whatsoever on the map. Only dots of where they should be. As the map of 2 is densly populated, there would be no location far away in the wild. We know they do want to create this.

 

Example: six point cabin is about 400 meters from the large town of Valentine. This is a gang hideout... One can literally see the enemies walking around when you would stand in the town.

 

Making this 700 or even 1000 meters is in a sense more logical.

 

I'll try today to measure some screenshots, might give more credibility to my theory, or silence it ofcourse xD

 

 

Very interesting. If we ever return to New Austin and Nueva Paraiso (unlike some people, I see this as being in the distant future), there'll need to be recreated in a bigger scale. For realism and believability, this can really only be a good thing. Although it'll make the Blackwater to Nosalita journey a hell of a trip!

 

I'm hoping some future version of RDR will recreate the whole huge map, from Civil War battlefields to California gold fields, from Juan's Tortillas to John's Pancakes (in maple syrup).

Would f*cking love to see some Civil War battlefields and gold fields (Canyon City anyone?!)

Did you ever use the train in the Red Dead Redemption 1? I personally didn't, as you could get everywhere faster on a horse.

 

I mainly just teleported wherever, and the only time I really used the train was to kill birds for a self improvement mission.

[Little Big Man]

That's how I personally seek self improvement: sit on a train and take pot shots at wild life.

 

Red Dead Redemption was so pretty that I used slow-travel as often as I could.

[ivarblaauw]

That's how I personally seek self improvement: sit on a train and take pot shots at wild life.

 

Red Dead Redemption was so pretty that I used slow-travel as often as I could.

 

I mainly just teleported wherever, and the only time I really used the train was to kill birds for a self improvement mission.

 

 

That is exactly why longer train trips would be logical. Instead of being at the next station in what... 2 minutes? It would take 5 minutes or even 10 to reach it. Enough time to shoot some herds of buffalo, kill some birds or take over the train...

 

​Finally they would be more than just... an unnecessary addition.

[Little Big Man]

Is this how Red Dead Redemption's America looks?

 

[Non Funkable Token]

^Kill it with fire...........

[ivarblaauw]

Is this how Red Dead Redemption's America looks?

 

No definitely not. Red Dead spans only a very small area. In Red Dead Redemption 1, there are only 3 territories, one being in Mexico.

 

It still only takes place in one state. So at most RDR2 spans two states, but my guess is that it is still only one state.

 

RDR 1 & 2 spans 6 US territories, which are defided into 15+ counties.

Then there is Mexico which also has a few counties *I have no idea what the Spanish name for 'county' is

Edited May 12, 2018 by ivarblaauw

[Little Big Man]

Is this more your speed?

 

 

If I make it too small, it cant reach from the desert to a reasonable place for a big river.