Mapping Red Dead Redemption 2! Landmark Analysis Thread

[Nutduster 13,401]

 

Great find! Good evidence that supports that the leaked map is indeed real. I've known since it first leaked TBH. When there's a fake map, you can just know its fake.

But with west Elizabeth being included, you can already tell off the bat that it was real because if some one wanted to fake a map and make it come across as believable, they would have never done that.

 

 

 

I don't think that's much of an argument to tell the truth. Who knows how a random person faking a map might think? Don't assume they're smarter than they are.

 

The little piece of Mexico is very Rockstar though, I agree. And the oil fields thing... hmmm.

 

I want to talk more about the general geography and how it relates to the real layout of the US. Post coming eventually, after I wrangle my thoughts.

[Kirk Lazarus 1,092]

Here's both maps separated to remove any confusion about what's from the original leaked map...

 

Red Dead 1

 

Red Dead 2

 

The overlapping area of West Elizabeth doesn't have some locations from the first game. It does feature a new spot called Quaker's Cove though. It also doesn't show a train track on the original leaked map.

 

I don't have any problem imagining San Diego Rockstar creating a larger narrative where the player visits West Elizabeth from the first game. Just because GTA doesn't do that doesn't mean Red Dead can't.

 

There was some other post somewhere that suggested the silhouettes from the sunset shot was Dutch's gang further suggesting Red Dead 2 is a prequel. That fits nicely with crossing over to West Elizabeth to where Dutch appeared at the end of Red Dead 1 as well as Marston trying to start a family at Beecher's Hope.

 

I didn't mess with the New Bordeaux area. The leaked screenshot looks like a bad pasting job with some opacity. On closer inspection this looks like a huge town. That'd be strange to feature the largest town in a far corner of the map.

 

 

 

Rockstar can make this world anything they want. It doesn't have to conform to some larger North America fiction... so you can have a Desert in the game somewhere.

 

Edited October 21, 2016 by alz

[Kirk Lazarus 1,092]

 

I have cleaned up the already cleaned Leaked map.

 

 

​Added New Bordeaux's roads, some side roads and fixed some of the names. Also added the logo and some fan art to give it a different feel

​New Bordeaux is about 3/4 times the size of Blackwater.

fyi if you wanna fill it in under the legend i'm 90% sure the dark blue/purple landmarks are rustling, as in places for stealing cattle

 

 

 

Good eye! That does look like Rustling...

I can't figure out the Purple one though...

If anyone else has any ideas what all the XxxXX and ??? marked locations are please reply to this thread for map updates.

[Nutduster 13,401]

 

I didn't mess with the New Bordeaux area. The leaked screenshot looks like a bad pasting job with some opacity. On closer inspection this looks like a huge town. That'd be strange to feature the largest town in a far corner of the map.

 

 

 

 

 

It's a bit off for the GTA model, but not that odd for Red Dead. For one thing, that's not a very large town even though it looks to be the largest on the map. For another, that's basically what they did already in RDR: Blackwater was the biggest and most city-like town, and it was isolated way off on the outer edge of the map. I think they really want wilderness and plains to be the game's main course, and towns to be interesting side dishes at most.

[Kirk Lazarus 1,092]

For what it's worth... the Rage engine land chunks match up with the leaked map, the original Red Dead map extracted by someone years ago and this other map of GTA 5.

 

 

 

BTW... the fact the regional streaming squares are the same size as the other Rockstar games gives a lot of credibility to this leaked map being real. It's a hard to imagine and odd feature to include if it's a fake map. You have to look really deep on the internet to find this information.

Edited October 21, 2016 by alz

[Dee-account-with-1kbans 4,630]

 

Great find! Good evidence that supports that the leaked map is indeed real. I've known since it first leaked TBH. When there's a fake map, you can just know its fake.

But with west Elizabeth being included, you can already tell off the bat that it was real because if some one wanted to fake a map and make it come across as believable, they would have never done that.

 

 

I don't think that's much of an argument to tell the truth. Who knows how a random person faking a map might think? Don't assume they're smarter than they are.

 

The little piece of Mexico is very Rockstar though, I agree. And the oil fields thing... hmmm.

 

I want to talk more about the general geography and how it relates to the real layout of the US. Post coming eventually, after I wrangle my thoughts.

Alright thanks for the reply.

And judging by the location of Three Peaks and the rail road, it lines up almost perfectly with the map. There's no doubt in my mind any more but I'm always welcome to great observations that debunk it.

[Kirk Lazarus 1,092]

 

 

I didn't mess with the New Bordeaux area. The leaked screenshot looks like a bad pasting job with some opacity. On closer inspection this looks like a huge town. That'd be strange to feature the largest town in a far corner of the map.

 

 

 

 

 

It's a bit off for the GTA model, but not that odd for Red Dead. For one thing, that's not a very large town even though it looks to be the largest on the map. For another, that's basically what they did already in RDR: Blackwater was the biggest and most city-like town, and it was isolated way off on the outer edge of the map. I think they really want wilderness and plains to be the game's main course, and towns to be interesting side dishes at most.

 

 

True! You're right... Blackwater was far off the to side in the previous game. It was a good representation of modern society moving into the wilds.

[Dee-account-with-1kbans 4,630]

Here's both maps separated to remove any confusion about what's from the original leaked map...

 

Red Dead 1

 

Red Dead 2

 

 

 

What's stopping us from crossing over into New Austin though? In redemption, there's bridges connecting West Elizabeth to New Austin.

Maybe we won't be able to swim after all and the bridges were removed.

[Nutduster 13,401]

Now, my next point. Back when Rockstar created RDR1, they created an amazing, sprawling recreation of Mexico, the American Southwest, extending north and east to the foothills of the Rockies & the beginning of the Midwestern great plains. On the way from "Texas" to the "Great Plains," and just before the Mason-Dixon line (Dixon Crossing/Mason Bridge) there was even a town that represented a swampy/bayou part of the country. There was even a rotting River Boat just up stream from that area. Given the scale of the rest of the map, this was just enough area to convey the area of New Orleans, LA, and it was situated in just the right position: between Texas and the plains.

 

Now, fast forward to the leaked map. If R* is making this great big new map, that includes a New Orleans parody (nevermind the indefensible idea that they are sharing custody of it with Hangar 13, lulz), why would they keep the "junior" version of it that lies on the other side of the "Great Plains" on the RDR1 map (Thieves' Landing)? Even if its not included, it's still "part of the canon," right? Otherwise WTF is the point of keeping any of it?? (well, the point is because it substantiates the inclusion of John Marston in the new game, which we all want, right?). But it just seems like more trouble than it's worth. If you're R* and you want to continue the story of John Marston or Dutch so badly, why don't you either A. Leave out any of the old map, so you don't have this weird repetition going on, or B. just don't make a, hahaha, "New Bordeaux." Problem solved.

 

I still haven't mentioned how "The Great Plains" in the RDR1 map gets repeated in the leaked map as "The Heartlands," both being terms for the same area of the United States; "Tall Trees" represented the beginning of the Rockies in RDR1, but now you leave those Rockies, travel up through the Great Plains, then hit NOLA again for some reason, then the Heartland again, and then back to the Rockies/Grizzlies, as you travel north and east from Mexico and Texas.

 

The problem I have with this leaked map is that it ruins the flow of R*'s version of the Frontier-era United States. It's like: either keep it the same, or start over...but don't try to jam these two together. And that's why I must conclude that this just doesn't feel like the R* way. Neither the idea of recycling characters, recycling stories, nor recycling maps.

 

Now we're really getting interesting with this.

 

I think the Thieves' Landing argument can be dismissed right away. It was never explicitly presented as being based on New Orleans. It's certainly not big enough, even viewed through the prism of Rockstar's America-in-a-bottle logic; New Orleans had a population of almost 300,000 around the time that Red Dead was set. While the setting is certainly "bayou country" (low-lying and swampy), that's not strictly a Louisiana thing. There are plentiful swamps and bayous in Mississippi and even Texas. And there were plenty of Southern and frontier towns that built their economies on whorehouses and gambling.

 

(I do think the sharing of New Bordeaux with Mafia III is still the weirdest part of all this, but it's SO weird it makes me wonder who would possibly put that on a fake map, and why? Too random. Even if the map were real I wonder if Rockstar would end up changing the name. "New Bordeaux" could just be a placeholder.)

 

As far as the Heartlands/Midwest/Great Plains issue, that's interesting, but bear in mind that that region of the US is massive and actually very diverse. And really, these terms are so slippery that it's hard to tell how Rockstar interprets them. The Heartlands is an informal term taken to mean things as broad as "all the states not touching an ocean," or as narrow as "the Midwest, and not much more." More commonly, I think, people use it to refer to the Midwest plus some or all of the Great Plains. All in all you're talking about some 15-20 states even by the more conservative interpretation of the term. The Great Plains of RDR was pretty clearly just the US Great Plains - that is, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, Wyoming, and northern Texas. Flat, dry grasslands. The hypothetical Heartlands of RDR2 could be much more Midwestern: Missouri, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, the Dakotas. Still mostly flat, but more moist and humid weather, greener, with more trees. Much of the Midwest was forest and swamp land until large swaths of it got cleared to provide lumber to the nation and farmlands to prospective farmers. (Interesting, short read here about Indiana in particular: http://geography.indiana.edu/news/evans_talk.pdf )

Edited October 21, 2016 by Nutduster

[EVOLUT7ON 13,021]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now I believe that this map is pretty legit... I taking my hat off for your work

[Dee-account-with-1kbans 4,630]

 

Now, my next point. Back when Rockstar created RDR1, they created an amazing, sprawling recreation of Mexico, the American Southwest, extending north and east to the foothills of the Rockies & the beginning of the Midwestern great plains. On the way from "Texas" to the "Great Plains," and just before the Mason-Dixon line (Dixon Crossing/Mason Bridge) there was even a town that represented a swampy/bayou part of the country. There was even a rotting River Boat just up stream from that area. Given the scale of the rest of the map, this was just enough area to convey the area of New Orleans, LA, and it was situated in just the right position: between Texas and the plains.

 

Now, fast forward to the leaked map. If R* is making this great big new map, that includes a New Orleans parody (nevermind the indefensible idea that they are sharing custody of it with Hangar 13, lulz), why would they keep the "junior" version of it that lies on the other side of the "Great Plains" on the RDR1 map (Thieves' Landing)? Even if its not included, it's still "part of the canon," right? Otherwise WTF is the point of keeping any of it?? (well, the point is because it substantiates the inclusion of John Marston in the new game, which we all want, right?). But it just seems like more trouble than it's worth. If you're R* and you want to continue the story of John Marston or Dutch so badly, why don't you either A. Leave out any of the old map, so you don't have this weird repetition going on, or B. just don't make a, hahaha, "New Bordeaux." Problem solved.

 

I still haven't mentioned how "The Great Plains" in the RDR1 map gets repeated in the leaked map as "The Heartlands," both being terms for the same area of the United States; "Tall Trees" represented the beginning of the Rockies in RDR1, but now you leave those Rockies, travel up through the Great Plains, then hit NOLA again for some reason, then the Heartland again, and then back to the Rockies/Grizzlies, as you travel north and east from Mexico and Texas.

 

The problem I have with this leaked map is that it ruins the flow of R*'s version of the Frontier-era United States. It's like: either keep it the same, or start over...but don't try to jam these two together. And that's why I must conclude that this just doesn't feel like the R* way. Neither the idea of recycling characters, recycling stories, nor recycling maps.

Now we're really getting interesting with this.

 

I think the Thieves' Landing argument can be dismissed right away. It was never explicitly presented as being based on New Orleans. It's certainly not big enough, even viewed through the prism of Rockstar's America-in-a-bottle logic; New Orleans had a population of almost 300,000 around the time that Red Dead was set. While the setting is certainly "bayou country" (low-lying and swampy), that's not strictly a Louisiana thing. There are plentiful swamps and bayous in Mississippi and even Texas. And there were plenty of Southern and frontier towns that built their economies on whorehouses and gambling.

 

(I do think the sharing of New Bordeaux with Mafia III is still the weirdest part of all this, but it's SO weird it makes me wonder who would possibly put that on a fake map, and why? Too random. Even if the map were real I wonder if Rockstar would end up changing the name. "New Bordeaux" could just be a placeholder.)

Yes. Plenty of swamps and bayous is Texas. Also, I don't think the goal with RDR1 was to just depict Texas and Mexico. When creating a Map you have to be creative and diverse too ya know. There's no snowy mountain caps and forests in Texas AFAIK. But there it is in Red Dead. Edited October 21, 2016 by DeeDogg_

[Kirk Lazarus 1,092]

 

Here's both maps separated to remove any confusion about what's from the original leaked map...

 

Red Dead 1

 

 

Red Dead 2

 

(removed ginormous pictures)

 

 

What's stopping us from crossing over into New Austin though? In redemption, there's bridges connecting West Elizabeth to New Austin.

Maybe we won't be able to swim after all and the bridges were removed.

 

 

If it set in an earlier time they can remove any bridge connecting to the original game. I suspect they'll keep your inability to swim. It's a cheap and wonderful way to gate the player without burning time on crazy ways the players try to get out of the world by swimming for miles.

Edited October 21, 2016 by alz

[Dee-account-with-1kbans 4,630]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great work man!
Its amazing how the trailer showed so little but the actual scale was astonishing. And that's not even 45% of the whole map!

 

 

Here's both maps separated to remove any confusion about what's from the original leaked map...

Red Dead 1


Red Dead 2

(removed ginormous pictures)

What's stopping us from crossing over into New Austin though? In redemption, there's bridges connecting West Elizabeth to New Austin.
Maybe we won't be able to swim after all and the bridges were removed.

If it set in an earlier time they can remove any bridge connecting to the original game. I suspect they'll keep your inability to swim. It's a cheap and wonderful way to gate the player without burning time on crazy ways the players try to get out of the world by swimming for miles.

Yeah. I suspected that too
Dammit R*. Why can't you do invisible walls like everyone else! I wanna swim goddammit

[Nutduster 13,401]

 

If it set in an earlier time they can remove any bridge connecting to the original game. I suspect they'll keep your inability to swim. It's a cheap and wonderful way to gate the player without burning time on crazy ways the players try to get out of the world by swimming for miles.

Yeah. I suspected that too

Dammit R*. Why can't you do invisible walls like everyone else! I wanna swim goddammit

 

 

I'm still holding out hope that *if* the map is even real, then swimming (and boating) are in the game, but they've employed other means of boxing us in. How about "a hostile Indian tribe is past that river, if you go too far they'll kill you"? They could even use the Bethesda model where the world keeps going but once you wander to a certain point, it just tells you you have to turn back. Though that is very noticeably artificial and Rockstar tries to avoid that kind of stuff usually.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Nutduster

[Kirk Lazarus 1,092]

 

 

If it set in an earlier time they can remove any bridge connecting to the original game. I suspect they'll keep your inability to swim. It's a cheap and wonderful way to gate the player without burning time on crazy ways the players try to get out of the world by swimming for miles.

Yeah. I suspected that too

Dammit R*. Why can't you do invisible walls like everyone else! I wanna swim goddammit

 

 

I'm still holding out hope that *if* the map is even real, then swimming (and boating) are in the game, but they've employed other means of boxing us in. How about "a hostile Indian tribe is past that river, if you go too far they'll kill you"? They could even use the Bethesda model where the world keeps going but once you wander to a certain point, it just tells you you have to turn back. Though that is very noticeably artificial and Rockstar tries to avoid that kind of stuff usually.

 

 

An invisible wall is the ultimate barrier. Setting up AI conflict can be unpredictable. There's also player mentality to push harder against a wave of combat thinking there's something to be mastered and rewarded with. I'm real curious if you'll be able to canoe! And is that allowed on the big open lake or only in rivers, blocked by rapids? If it's on the big lake, then I'd expect a shoreline far south. Paddling over there for 5 minutes to get nowhere would be a bit of bad game design.

 

Getting back to the invisible wall... would players call this a cheap and inexperienced thing to do? Like smashing your horse unexpectedly into nothing? heh Coming up with creative world edges usually boils down to hills too tall to climb or some magical teleportation wall for open water.

[Nutduster 13,401]

They also have done the thing where your plane or boat dies and sharks get you (GTA V).

 

For some reason I just don't see them doing invisible walls - they never have, and somehow it feels very un-Rockstar-like, to me. They seem to be big on immersion and invisible walls yank players out of their immersion pretty hard. Maybe they would monkey with the known terrain a little bit - make some impassable rocks and cliffs along the river, or something.

 

My best case scenario is that they end up including the entire RDR landmass and map along with the new map, and it just wasn't all shown on the leak. Though obviously they've never done anything like that before. They occasionally use a piece of an old map (like the Liberty City mission in San Andreas), but never the whole thing. But man, I really just want this map to be YUGE.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Nutduster

[EVOLUT7ON 13,021]

 

 

 

Now I believe that this map is pretty legit... I taking my hat off for your work

 

 

 

 

 

Want to add two more snaps with Little Creek:

Edited October 21, 2016 by Spuds725

[Meekail 418]

They also have done the thing where your plane or boat dies and sharks get you (GTA V).

 

For some reason I just don't see them doing invisible walls - they never have, and somehow it feels very un-Rockstar-like, to me. They seem to be big on immersion and invisible walls yank players out of their immersion pretty hard. Maybe they would monkey with the known terrain a little bit - make some impassable rocks and cliffs along the river, or something.

 

My best case scenario is that they end up including the entire RDR landmass and map along with the new map, and it just wasn't all shown on the leak. Though obviously they've never done anything like that before. They occasionally use a piece of an old map (like the Liberty City mission in San Andreas), but never the whole thing. But man, I really just want this map to be YUGE.

They did invisible walls in GTA Vice City though. Bummed me out the first time I played it and tried to go to the end of the map haha

[ExtremeTorque 1,237]

Well if the leaked map turns true I'm worried it'll end up being small.

[Spuds725 879]

Please use spoiler tags if you are quoting large posts and or multiple pictures.... we don't need the pages stretching so far...

 

Thanks

 

see below....

Insert quoted posts here

[USAPatriot 203]

I know it doesn't look like much yet, but I am working on mapping this river valley in what appears to be between Three Peaks, or what I am going to call the "Three Sisters." I am charting the river course now, then will focus on the mountains which I doubt are climbable to the top. I also have no compass yet until we come to a consensus on one.

 

[Nutduster 13,401]

Well if the leaked map turns true I'm worried it'll end up being small.

 

Just the new stuff is about 30% larger (landmass only, not counting water) as the original RDR map. Add in the part of RDR they appear to be reusing and it's even bigger. Considering we'll still be using horses, I think it would end up being plenty.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Nutduster

[EVOLUT7ON 13,021]

Well if the leaked map turns true I'm worried it'll end up being small.

When you ride by a horse and not by a bugatti, it seems long and big

 

I had nothing against RDR1 size map, so I have nothing against RDR2 map, after all it looks bigger and wilder

Edited October 21, 2016 by EVOLUT7ON

[ExtremeTorque 1,237]

 

Well if the leaked map turns true I'm worried it'll end up being small.

When you ride by a horse and not by a bugatti, it seems long and big

 

I had nothing against RDR1 size map, so I have nothing against RDR2 map, after all it looks bigger and wilder

My point is I thought rdr1 map was huge but this looks smaller,can we have the two maps same scale to compare?

[860 1,600]

My point is I thought rdr1 map was huge but this looks smaller,can we have the two maps same scale to compare?

Here http://i.imgur.com/sbhTx5T.jpg

[Nutduster 13,401]

 

When you ride by a horse and not by a bugatti, it seems long and big

I had nothing against RDR1 size map, so I have nothing against RDR2 map, after all it looks bigger and wilder

My point is I thought rdr1 map was huge but this looks smaller,can we have the two maps same scale to compare?

 

 

This is close. As you can see, the new landmass on the leaked map is a bit bigger than the old one. The size is hard to tell since both masses are weirdly-shaped but eyeballing it, I think 30% or so is right, and that's not including the recycled West Elizabeth, which adds even more.

 

[e1999KrayzieBone 247]

I currently feel about 55% confident the leaked map is fake, so about 45% confident the leaked map is real...it's a very close call.

 

The reason I think it could be real is some of the mountain ranges, general landscape of "heartlands + mountains", etc. appear to be lining up, albeit vaguely, with the trailer.

 

However, there is so much damn evidence that that leaked map has been altered through photoshop. I don't trust anything at this point other than the topography and general map/district boundaries. I even have trouble trusting the Bayou region is real because that whole region looks like sh*t to me.

I just want to err on the side of caution with that leaked map, especially with anything that's mentioned on that damn legend. The towns, settlements, railroads, trails, everything...looks fake to me. But that's not to say the entire map is faked.

Edited October 21, 2016 by e1999KrayzieBone

[Kirk Lazarus 1,092]

Here's the landmass for each game if people want to play around with them.

 

I'm sure there's some Photoshop plugin out there that counts pixel colors. Find out what each pixel distance is equal to game distances (google search size of GTA or RDR 1) then multiple the pixel count to find how much land exists in each game.

 

 

The original Red Dead Redemption looks like a T-Rex head with a Rooster on top if it

Edited October 21, 2016 by alz

[Richard Power Colt 3,066]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great work man!

Its amazing how the trailer showed so little but the actual scale was astonishing. And that's not even 45% of the whole map!

 

 

Here's both maps separated to remove any confusion about what's from the original leaked map...

 

Red Dead 1

 

 

Red Dead 2

 

(removed ginormous pictures)

 

 

What's stopping us from crossing over into New Austin though? In redemption, there's bridges connecting West Elizabeth to New Austin.

Maybe we won't be able to swim after all and the bridges were removed.

 

If it set in an earlier time they can remove any bridge connecting to the original game. I suspect they'll keep your inability to swim. It's a cheap and wonderful way to gate the player without burning time on crazy ways the players try to get out of the world by swimming for miles.

Yeah. I suspected that too

Dammit R*. Why can't you do invisible walls like everyone else! I wanna swim goddammit

Invisible walls would just be immersion breaking, I wouldn't like them at all. The whole West Elizabeth inclusion in the leaked map doesn't make sense to me. The leaked map doesn't show any bridges between West Elizabeth and the northern areas and there was no such thing in Redemption 1 either obviously. So how are we gonna travel between the two areas, by boat? It seems like some very awkward map design and like already said, stopping people from going further south to the old map seems like it could be very complicated.

 

It's possible that the leaked map is real as we have noticed similarities between it and the trailer, but it could be a very early concept that has seen major re-designs over the course of development.

 

Also the "New Bordeaux" name still sounds questionable, because it's a city in Mafia 3.

[Chinese Takeout 3,626]

 

<snip>

Now we're really getting interesting with this.

 

I think the Thieves' Landing argument can be dismissed right away. It was never explicitly presented as being based on New Orleans. It's certainly not big enough, even viewed through the prism of Rockstar's America-in-a-bottle logic; New Orleans had a population of almost 300,000 around the time that Red Dead was set. While the setting is certainly "bayou country" (low-lying and swampy), that's not strictly a Louisiana thing. There are plentiful swamps and bayous in Mississippi and even Texas. And there were plenty of Southern and frontier towns that built their economies on whorehouses and gambling.

 

(I do think the sharing of New Bordeaux with Mafia III is still the weirdest part of all this, but it's SO weird it makes me wonder who would possibly put that on a fake map, and why? Too random. Even if the map were real I wonder if Rockstar would end up changing the name. "New Bordeaux" could just be a placeholder.)

 

As far as the Heartlands/Midwest/Great Plains issue, that's interesting, but bear in mind that that region of the US is massive and actually very diverse. And really, these terms are so slippery that it's hard to tell how Rockstar interprets them. The Heartlands is an informal term taken to mean things as broad as "all the states not touching an ocean," or as narrow as "the Midwest, and not much more." More commonly, I think, people use it to refer to the Midwest plus some or all of the Great Plains. All in all you're talking about some 15-20 states even by the more conservative interpretation of the term. The Great Plains of RDR was pretty clearly just the US Great Plains - that is, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, Wyoming, and northern Texas. Flat, dry grasslands. The hypothetical Heartlands of RDR2 could be much more Midwestern: Missouri, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, the Dakotas. Still mostly flat, but more moist and humid weather, greener, with more trees. Much of the Midwest was forest and swamp land until large swaths of it got cleared to provide lumber to the nation and farmlands to prospective farmers. (Interesting, short read here about Indiana in particular: http://geography.indiana.edu/news/evans_talk.pdf )

 

 

Yeah, I went through that thought process, too, and I agree about Thieves' Landing. At the time, in 2010, I felt like it was sufficient to represent for NOLA (or the feel of NOLA) for 2 reasons. One reason was its percentage of the map...that was good enough.

 

However, now - post-gigantic-GTA5-map - I no longer think it's sufficient. And, as you point out, NOLA would have had a much larger population back then, for it to be represented by tiny ol' Thieves' Landing. So, in the era of Rockstar really KICKING ASS when it comes to making, not only HUGE, but DENSE maps, a parody of NOLA would have to be larger.

 

But, that brings me to the second reason why (back in 2010) I thought Thieves' Landing was sufficient to represent NOLA, and why (in 2016) I the leaked map confuses me: in a game series that is a love letter to CLASSIC WESTERNS and The OLD WEST/WILD WEST...why even include NOLA at all? I tried to make a list of all the classic/epic "Western" movies that were set in NOLA or even just included NOLA for part of the film, and I was at a total loss. The best I could come up with was...1994's "Interview with the Vampire" which isn't really a western, but it is set (partially) in New Orleans in that time period (late 1700's-late 1800's). Maybe "O Brother Where Art Thou?" That's Mississippi in 1937, but whatever...I'm trying here! :-) Django Unchained? Again, Mississippi, but...sort of Bayou-ish and Cajun-y. They start out in Texas, so they were traveling in that area on their way to see Calvin Candie. If anyone can think of some great, classic Western that is set in whole or in part in N'awlins, hook me up.

 

But, this was the thought process I went through when trying to legitimatize the presence of New Bordeaux on the map. As I said, in another post, I'm going to go with the idea that this map is legit for now. But I'm still puzzled as hell as to why R* would assign NOLA so much real estate on the map for a game that covers a genre that RARELY sets foot in that town, haha. Can't wait to find out, though!

 

As far as your assessment of the Great Plains and the Heartlands, spot on. Being a Minnesota native, I am hoping that RDR2 will take me up closer to home...maybe the Dakotas or Iowa or something.