Next RDR Game = My Ideas

[Geekatoni]

1 minute ago, Oldsport said:

but after the epilogue of rdr2 they have hella money like 20,000 dollars so why would he need money again

The epilogue takes place in 1907. the failed robbery is in 1906

[Mach1bud]

1 hour ago, geeknetgamespsn said:

I think they should explore after RDR2. Theres a gap in the timeline where John joins Dutch again. 1900-1906 thats where I think the next red dead will take place.

I mean I could see that but like.. People keep forgetting theres a 6 year gap in the timeline... JOHN JOINS DUTCH AGAIN I know it sounds crazy but its what happens for RDR1 to be canonical. 1900-1906ish he joins dutch again so the failed robbery of 1906 where John gets left for dead takes place. This is a point where we can fully see dutch lose faith in everything and even himself. Also this would have too end with John watching dutch "Die" even tho he actually is but he is rumored to have died in a fire in 1906. The Redemption series is the story of the Dutch's gang I could see them going back too about 15 years from RDR2. The gang would have been further north west. So california or new mexico. But theres a lot of talk of that time period in RDR2 between the gang.. The golden years of Dutch would be a great red dead.

I think you are confused. The failed robbery happens in 1899 before RDR2 takes place. It's the one on a boat where Dutch murders that girl and John gets left behind. It's the whole reason the story of RDR2 even happens in the first place.

41 minutes ago, geeknetgamespsn said:

The epilogue takes place in 1907. the failed robbery is in 1906

The failed robbery is in 1899 before the events of RDR2.

[Geekatoni]

1 minute ago, Mach1bud said:

I think you are confused. The failed robbery happens in 1899 before RDR2 takes place. It's the one on a boat where Dutch murders that girl and John gets left behind. It's the whole reason the story of RDR2 even happens in the first place.

The failed robbery is in 1899 before the events of RDR2.

No thats a different one completely. Yes John got shot on that one but it isnt the one where the gang left him for dead. the main notable event from that robbery (the ferry) was Heidi McCourt being killed by Dutch for no reason. The one im talking about is the one that sparks RDR1s story. 1906 events are The robbery where the gang left John for dead and Dutch was thought to have died in a fire in this robbery. 

It seems like the WIKI edited the timeline a bit but it doesnt seem right because I dont think its retcon i think its just ppl are mistaking certain events for others.

[Mach1bud]

7 minutes ago, geeknetgamespsn said:

No thats a different one completely. Yes John got shot on that one but it isnt the one where the gang left him for dead. the main notable event from that robbery (the ferry) was Heidi McCourt being killed by Dutch for no reason. The one im talking about is the one that sparks RDR1s story. 1906 events are The robbery where the gang left John for dead and Dutch was thought to have died in a fire in this robbery. 

It seems like the WIKI edited the timeline a bit but it doesnt seem right because I dont think its retcon i think its just ppl are mistaking certain events for others.

So you are trying to tell me there were two failed heists both on Ferries where Dutch just so happened to kill an innocent girl and both times John got left behind...lol.

 

The robbery that Dutch allegedly dies in a fire, is not the ferry heist where John gets left for dead. 

 

Edited November 11, 2018 by Mach1bud

[Geekatoni]

Just now, Mach1bud said:

So you are trying to tell me there were two failed heists both on Ferries where Dutch just so happened to kill an innocent girl and both times John got left behind...lol.

 

 

ugh... Think about it theres two failed heists the one where John left the gang and then the one that sparked the events of RDR2. People are thinking the train heist is the one that made John leave the gang but its not right.

The one that sparks RDR2 is known as the Blackwater Massacre THIS ISNT THE ONE THAT SPARKS RDR1s EVENTS

 

Plus we know that the robbery that made John go against the gang wasnt on a ferry at all it was at a bank. the same bank that made people presume that Dutch had died... Replay RDR1 and listen closely too the backstory. Its all there its mentioned by Ross several times

[Mach1bud]

24 minutes ago, geeknetgamespsn said:

ugh... Think about it theres two failed heists the one where John left the gang and then the one that sparked the events of RDR2. People are thinking the train heist is the one that made John leave the gang but its not right.

The one that sparks RDR2 is known as the Blackwater Massacre THIS ISNT THE ONE THAT SPARKS RDR1s EVENTS

 

Plus we know that the robbery that made John go against the gang wasnt on a ferry at all it was at a bank. the same bank that made people presume that Dutch had died... Replay RDR1 and listen closely too the backstory. Its all there its mentioned by Ross several times

Alright researched up and you are correct, but sh*t man they could have made it a little more clear. Almost no information is available about the robbery in 1906, plus the end of RDR2 definitely feels like it's implied that he leaves the gang in 1899. Guess not. My apologies. Believe it or not I actually replayed RDR1 twice this year lol.

 

Either way, I don't think the next game will revisit the Van Der Linde gang. I think it will be a new story.

[Geekatoni]

1 minute ago, Mach1bud said:

Alright researched up and you are correct, but sh*t man they could have made it a little more clear. Almost no information is available about the robbery in 1906, plus the end of RDR2 definitely feels like it's implied that he leaves the gang in 1899. Guess not. My apologies. Believe it or not I actually replayed RDR1 twice this year lol.

 

Either way, I don't think the next game will revisit the Van Der Linde gang. I think it will be a new story.

Its alright dude lmao. Well it depends because if the name has Redemption in it then its the Van Der Linde storyline. 

[mehoe123]

Keep cars out of RDR is all I gotta say.

[Mach1bud]

1 minute ago, mehoe123 said:

Keep cars out of RDR is all I gotta say.

They are already in RDR mate.

[Fatsanchez]

This “John joins Dutch again” doesnt make any sense if you have played RDR2 until the end. The failed ferry heist happens before (and sets) the events of the game and the heist where John is left behind is the train one. He is left behind by Dutch, everyone presumes he’s dead - Arthur even conforts Abigail shortly before confronting Micah and Dutch - the moment when John shows up again confronting Dutch for leaving him behind.  This is very much clear. After this Arthur helps John leave the gang and then what follows are the events of the prologue. John never joins Dutch again. He just left the gang. If anything Dutch would take him for a traitor. Theres just no sense in this after everything Arthur helps to unfold, giving John a chance to a new life away from Dutch. After the end credits there is a couple of scenes that shows how agent Ross found John and it just wraps everything up so the RDR1 events can start happening. Thats why also the last throphy is called “endless summer”, thats the last summer before the events of RDR1 and where time “freezes” and we just roam around after completing the story. I dunno if I made myself clear, but its pretty clear to me.

Edited November 11, 2018 by Fatsanchez
Added spoilers

[Baked English Beans]

1 hour ago, geeknetgamespsn said:

ugh... Think about it theres two failed heists the one where John left the gang and then the one that sparked the events of RDR2. People are thinking the train heist is the one that made John leave the gang but its not right.

The one that sparks RDR2 is known as the Blackwater Massacre THIS ISNT THE ONE THAT SPARKS RDR1s EVENTS

 

Plus we know that the robbery that made John go against the gang wasnt on a ferry at all it was at a bank. the same bank that made people presume that Dutch had died... Replay RDR1 and listen closely too the backstory. Its all there its mentioned by Ross several times

I think I remember reading something on the wiki about 1906 but in that case it was retconned because there is no way in hell John and fam. went back to Dutch after the ending. At that point John was cemented as a traitor in Dutch's eyes. The left for dead bit he refers to in the first game is when he got shot on the final train robbery and Dutch left him behind. The whole point of the ending was Arthur helping John get out of the gang, so him going back makes no sense. He never makes any reference in the epilogue to riding with Dutch again. When Sadie and John confront Micah and Dutch on the mountaintop based on the dialogue it's definetely the first time they've seen them since 1899. It wouldn't be the only retcon as Javier refers to John and Abigail's daughter in the first game as if she was alive at the time they last saw each other but no reference is made to her in 2.

Edited November 11, 2018 by Baked English Beans

[mehoe123]

36 minutes ago, Mach1bud said:

They are already in RDR mate.

Ya, in the first one. Just dont turn it into a GTA style, keep away from the prohibition era.

[Mach1bud]

6 minutes ago, mehoe123 said:

Ya, in the first one. Just dont turn it into a GTA style, keep away from the prohibition era.

Oh yes I agree. 1914 was already pushing it in RDR, well past the "wild west" prime. 

[durkahdurkah]

1906 is the date referenced in the first game, but I believe Rockstar re-wrote/shifted event timelines to fit better with the prequel. 

 

1906 = 1899

 

 

at least that's what I think.. wouldn't make sense otherwise.

[Corndawg93]

I'd like to see to different 2 stories

1. Play as Dutch back in the 1870s meeting Hosea and Arthur and building his "empire"

2. Play as Sadie in 1915, bounty hunter and tasked with bringing down the last of the remaining gunslingers of the wild west.

 

Both maps take place in California/Nevada/Arizona area, with New Austin and West Elizabeth over lapping 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Corndawg93

[Oldsport]

2 hours ago, Corndawg93 said:

I'd like to see to different 2 stories

1. Play as Dutch back in the 1870s meeting Hosea and Arthur and building his "empire"

2. Play as Sadie in 1915, bounty hunter and tasked with bringing down the last gangs of the wild west.

 

Both maps take place in California/Nevada/Arizona area, with New Austin and West Elizabeth over lapping 

dont think dutch really had a empire. another dlc idea that would be cool is playing the events after arthur dies and we play as javier bill and dutch but in different chapters. we play 3 chapters as javier in mexico, 3 chapters as bill in new austin and 3 chapters as dutch in west elizabeth. ultimately leading up to the events of rdr1

[Journey_95]

Next RDR game will probably take at least a decade..way too early to think about it. But it should definitely take place in the golden age of the Wild West and not have anything to do with Arthur, John and Dutch's stories. RDR2 was basically the perfect prequel which isn't easy to do but there is no need to overuse these great characters

Edited November 12, 2018 by Journey_95

[CryptReaperDorian]

I'm not sure about anybody else, but I'd like more of a success story rather than a tragedy (dying West) story next time around. It's been far too long since R* has given us a game where you rise to the top and lose little-to-nothing in the process (as with GTA SA and GTA VCS to a slightly lesser extent). GTA Online really doesn't count, and GTA V's single-player, which seemed like it was going to be much more of a success story than it really is, still robs the player of a few things (like Franklin's first house, which is in a much more useful location than his mansion) while rarely rewarding the player with anything of value (most missions, collectibles, and activities don't even have any sort of worthwhile reward).

[Sr.Viktor]

I think that is clear that RDR 3 will go back in time like 2 did and close the Redemption trilogy. I saw a picture in Arthur's bed that shows a young Hosea, Dutch and Arthur. I would like to play as Dutch or the three as GTA V in the classic Lawless Old West showing the formation of the gang.

 

After the conclusion of Redemption trilogy, it would be nice to see a new entry to the serie. Maybe a Revenge driven story. Revolver and Redemption did that in some sort, but a fully revenge theme game would be great. 

[TableTennisChamp]

On 11/11/2018 at 1:49 PM, Baked English Beans said:

I think I remember reading something on the wiki about 1906 but in that case it was retconned because there is no way in hell John and fam. went back to Dutch after the ending. At that point John was cemented as a traitor in Dutch's eyes. The left for dead bit he refers to in the first game is when he got shot on the final train robbery and Dutch left him behind. The whole point of the ending was Arthur helping John get out of the gang, so him going back makes no sense. He never makes any reference in the epilogue to riding with Dutch again. When Sadie and John confront Micah and Dutch on the mountaintop based on the dialogue it's definetely the first time they've seen them since 1899. It wouldn't be the only retcon as Javier refers to John and Abigail's daughter in the first game as if she was alive at the time they last saw each other but no reference is made to her in 2.

I was afraid of retcons like this happening but it's alright. Was a little disappointed we didn't actually see the Blackwater massacre occur because Landon Ricketts was there and it would have been interesting to see the whole Heidi McCourt thing happen with Dutch, no new information about John's daughter, and the retcon of the whole John leaving the gang. But I guess I can live with these changes. Still some missed opportunities though.

Edited November 13, 2018 by AddamHusayin

[The1raven]

On 11/10/2018 at 11:21 AM, Jason said:

The next Red Dead, when ever that may happen, should be an entirely new story IMO. Setting it in the same world would be good, maybe mention the van der Linde gang, maybe have some returning characters, but it should follow a brand new character that's unconnected to the stories in both Redemption 1 and 2.

 

There's no need to explore the story of Dutch, Arthur or John any more though IMO.

Yeah.  I even am disappointed that they went with Dutch and his gang this time around.  For me, the real power to John's story in Rdr1 was that his past was kind of ambiguous.  You knew he'd done bad things but the story was about his attempt at redemption and moving forward.  I had no desire to go DO those bad things with him and it lessened his story for me.

 

I liked Arthur.  But pretty much right from the start I was just annoyed with Dutch and the fact that if was going to keep playing (and I was) I was going to be taking orders from Dutch.  New story about redemption would have been much better for my $.