Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
      2. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Gunboat138

Single player New Austin

Recommended Posts

Gunboat138

There are some hot, nasty spoilers here, so beware.

 

 

I'm thoroughly convinced that they created New Austin for purely online purposes.  MAYBE for sp dlc, but Im not holding my breath.  The 1907 New Austin isn't entirely continuity breaking, but it's bent pretty damn far.  John said the gang never went to New Austin, not that he didn't serves to reason he could've visited a few times, but full on assulting Ft. Mercer alone?  Why did he need help in the first game then?   Also when you factor in that Tumbleweed became derelict in 4 years, they built up half the town of Thieves landing in 4 years and the sheriffs office and barn in MacFarlanes is missing, I'm fairly certain that the New Austin we see is 1899 New Austin.  Why?  Cause online takes place in 1899.  I just figure they threw it in there because they didn't want to wade through the tears of butthurt fans to pick up their checks.

 

Anyway, thoughts?

Edited by Gunboat138
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThroatSlasher2

It's certainly a bizarre way to handle things.

 

On one hand they make Armadillo a ghost town to explain why John never went there, for continuity's sake.

 

But seconds later, you're taking over Fort Mercer and then playing poker in Tumbleweed, which John didn't know was a town until Marshal Johnson told him four years later.

 

Why bother at that point? Just make it all accessible. If I can accept that the gang broke up in 1899 instead of 1906, I can accept that John went to New Austin regardless of the events of 1911. A true scramble.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunboat138
3 minutes ago, ThroatSlasher2 said:

It's certainly a bizarre way to handle things.

 

On one hand they make Armadillo a ghost town to explain why John never went there, for continuity's sake.

 

But seconds later, you're taking over Fort Mercer and then playing poker in Tumbleweed, which John didn't know was a town until Marshal Johnson told him four years later.

 

Why bother at that point? Just make it all accessible. If I can accept that the gang broke up in 1899 instead of 1906, I can accept that John went to New Austin regardless of the events of 1911. A true scramble.

Damn, thats right, John did get left for dead in '06.   I will give them props, Cholera is a decent cop out.   But they dropped the ball on the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gtaman_92

They should of just left New Austin out of the game entirely. The region serves no purpose at all and was only put in to please fans.

Edited by Gtaman_92
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Revoemag
1 minute ago, Gtaman_92 said:

They should of just left New Austin out of the game entirely. The region serves no purpose at all and was only put in to please fans.

Maybe they plan on releasing a remastered version of rdr1 as a dlc..

 

I would probably buy that..

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AddamHusayin
44 minutes ago, Gtaman_92 said:

They should of just left New Austin out of the game entirely. The region serves no purpose at all and was only put in to please fans.

We all know if they didn't then fans would have complained why it wasn't replicated. I won't complain that it is in the game. More to explore even it isn't as fleshed out as the newer map. 

 

Also something people are forgetting when it comes to continuity is that story missions never take you to Armadillo, Tumbleweed, Fort Mercer etc so it isn't exactly canon breaking in that area. That's just you choosing to free roam. I mean people would've complained if it wasn't accessible for soem reason and you could only go to Blackwater and Beecher's Hope. But him going to Pike's Basin is breaking with canon along with the whole gang breaking up in 1899 instead of 1906.

 

I feared retcons and was hoping they wouldn't happen but it's not completely awful I guess. If only they had written both games at the same time.

Edited by AddamHusayin
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oldsport
59 minutes ago, Gtaman_92 said:

They should of just left New Austin out of the game entirely. The region serves no purpose at all and was only put in to please fans.

honestly. id rather see one more new city or area rather than them add in NA and mexico in the state that its in. coulda added a canadian like town in the snowy parts of the map which is virtually unused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jabalous
2 hours ago, ThroatSlasher2 said:

It's certainly a bizarre way to handle things.

 

On one hand they make Armadillo a ghost town to explain why John never went there, for continuity's sake.

 

But seconds later, you're taking over Fort Mercer and then playing poker in Tumbleweed, which John didn't know was a town until Marshal Johnson told him four years later.

 

Why bother at that point? Just make it all accessible. If I can accept that the gang broke up in 1899 instead of 1906, I can accept that John went to New Austin regardless of the events of 1911. A true scramble.

I commented on this subject before in another topic, so allow me to repeat my thought below. 

 

I share the disappointment in the lack of Story content in New Austin and Southern West Elizabeth. It's not a bitter disappointment, but instead because of my enjoyment of the openness and seclusion of the scorching deserts and towns where even wildlife is rarely seen in abundance. However, I'd argue that their existence isn't because of a desire to serve the fans what they ask for, but because that's what the story eventually leads to. The post-Arthur content when we lead Marston to rebuild his life and eventually settle in his ranch at Beecher's Hope necessitates the inclusion of New Austin since, by design, there's no way to block us from heading into there. There are no natural barriers that'd make it believably difficult to reach Thieves Landing and beyond. It had to be included. 

 

I believe the decision to have no story content taking place in Armadillo and beyond was smart in that it aligns with the fact that when Marston stepped into Armadillo at the start of the first game, he was clearly clueless of the state and where Fort Mercer is. It was his first time there as he also revealed to Bonnie. Even though we're able to explore the whole map with Marston in 1907, in the pre-Redemption world, and more so we've access to some bounty missions in Tumbleweed, I think none of that ties with story in that what we do in the free world and most of the side content do not have an effect in how the main story is told, at least in most of the cases. One example is if you go exploring Saint Denis before you visit it the first time with Dutch, Arthur seemingly does not recognize the place and the conversation between him and Dutch plays like I didn't explore the whole city already in free roam. Or in another example, in Redemption 2, you can acquire a large sum of money through your own made-up heists in the free world, probably even beyond what Dutch has wished for if you put in the time, and yet that wouldn't change the course of the story, and regardless of how much wealthier Arthur has become through his own player-controlled adventures. The same logic can be applied about our own made-up adventures with Marston in the desert state, prior to his actual Story existence in 2010's Redemption. 

Edited by Jabalous
  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeonVegaSuarez

I really, really wish Arthur could go there. Maybe open it up in chapter 4. Make Blackwater a "wanted dead or alive zone" but at least make the rest accessible. Highly doubt they'd add this in a patch though, since I doubt Arthur has dialogue lines for interactions with New Austin NPC's.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Money Over Bullshit

There's no way Blackwater could have changed that much in four years either and that's in West Elizabeth. Edgar Ross ages about 20 years aswell. More carelessness than anything else I think. Kind of strange since they added so many tiny details. We know that the 1907 portion was planned from the start so there's really no excuse. It's basically like they put certain things in there moreso for comedic "Rockstar Logic" than anything else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jabalous

I also would like to add my impression that the artistic work invested into New Austin, in terms of models and textures complexity and refinement, is somewhat below the level of the primary states in the east. It's very likely that they imported some of the assets from Redemption and refined them instead of creating them from scratch. It'd have been the logical thing to do in order to cut costs by speeding up development and reducing the burden on artists by not dedicating a lot of their time in re-creating a state that is not relevant to the story. Again, I don't think it exists merely for Online, but I believe it'll be put into use in that space with some story content touching the Del Lobo gang. Think mission givers, co-op missions and other fun interactions. 

 

New Austin feels and looks deadlier this time, with barely any functional town, but instead more ruins and corpses. There's also a subtle soundtrack that sometimes plays during nighttime in the desert. Trust me, it makes the place feels creepier and lonelier. 

Edited by Jabalous
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunboat138

I will say this, I absolutely love how the desert lools in this game.  10/10.  They captured the lethal beautu that probably wasn't possible in the last gen.

Edited by Gunboat138
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tonko

Honestly, since i'm such a die hard fan of RDR 1 single player and multiplayer, i would love for them to do more with New Austin. Also, like i said numerous times, i want damn Mexico. I want it, badly.

 

This statements are formed through years of fun gang matches we had there. Can't imagine what it could look like on current gen system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lock n' Stock

Rockstar has always handled time differences in locations oddly, since at least Liberty City and Vice City Stories. The plague in Armadillo and the lack of civilisation in Thieves Landing is somewhat confusing, but anything can change in 4 years. Still doesn't explain how NOTHING in the map in the original RDR has changed once you're playing as Jack 3 years later.

 

Its nice to revisit New Austin I guess, but it's inclusion doesn't serve much purpose and is lacking in content, in addition to being continuity-breaking as others have pointed out. I get the feeling that it was really designed for Online, but Rockstar decided to include it in single-player as fan service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The N. Bellic Man
1 hour ago, tonko said:

Also, like i said numerous times, i want damn Mexico. I want it, badly.

 

Can't imagine what it could look like on current gen system.

Glitch your way to Mexico. That way you get a decent view of what could be.

 

One thing that could be meaningless but I think that it is not - when you're in Mexico the "Mexico soundtrack" from RDR plays in the background. Might be a hint or might be nothing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gallows
6 hours ago, Gtaman_92 said:

They should of just left New Austin out of the game entirely. The region serves no purpose at all and was only put in to please fans.

What a silly thing to say. There are things to do there and it is great for online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jabalous
58 minutes ago, Lock n' Stock said:

Rockstar has always handled time differences in locations oddly, since at least Liberty City and Vice City Stories. The plague in Armadillo and the lack of civilisation in Thieves Landing is somewhat confusing, but anything can change in 4 years. Still doesn't explain how NOTHING in the map in the original RDR has changed once you're playing as Jack 3 years later.

 

Its nice to revisit New Austin I guess, but it's inclusion doesn't serve much purpose and is lacking in content, in addition to being continuity-breaking as others have pointed out. I get the feeling that it was really designed for Online, but Rockstar decided to include it in single-player as fan service.

Thieves Landing wasn't civilized and tamed in Redemption. It was still run by gangs and outlaws, and committing crimes there didn't incur a bounty. As for the Armadillo plague, I don't think it's mentioned in Redemption. It's only vaguely explained by the 'curse' mystery in a cabin, and somehow it has to do with the 'I Know you' stranger. Maybe he's actually a god that blessed them in two generations, but after they turned into sin, he cursed them? 

Edited by Jabalous
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunboat138
10 minutes ago, Jabalous said:

Thieves Landing wasn't civilized and tamed in Redemption. It was still run by gangs and outlaws, and committing crimes there didn't incur a bounty. 

I'm more perplexed as to how they built up 2\3rds of a town that fast.  The Hotel, saloon, shops, warehouse.  Hard to believe that all that went up that fast.  Like I know it's possible, just unlikely.  As I said before, I don't think they ever broke the continuity, they just bent it really far.

 

Gonna go with what someone else said, aside from the trip to Pike's, gotta take the rest of your potential NA sojourn as non canon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HockeyMike24

I think it was kind of a last minute thing to add NA. Why do people want Mexico so bad? I understand it was in the first game and people want it for nostalgia. But isn't New Austin enough? I would much rather have more snowy regions personally.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paro93

I believe NA is where Rockstar dropped the ball in RDR2.

It's very lame in comparison to the rest of the game, and that's exactly how companies shouldn't build an open world map. Hopefully we will get single player dlc that actually improves upon it.

But that's really minor when we see the quality of the full game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jabalous

The military fort at the top of the hill in El Presidio is the only visible human-built landmark as seen from New Austin. Chuparosa was also visible from Rio Bravo, bur for some reason, it wasn't created and put there for the illusion. Want to get a taste of Nuevo Paraiso? Go exploring in the area circled by red in the picture below and make sure to do it druing daytime. 

 

ssB25AU.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tonko
2 hours ago, The N. Bellic Man said:

Glitch your way to Mexico. That way you get a decent view of what could be.

 

One thing that could be meaningless but I think that it is not - when you're in Mexico the "Mexico soundtrack" from RDR plays in the background. Might be a hint or might be nothing.

Been there and heard the Mexico music.

 

But i still hope we get full Mexico later or at the start of 2019.

1 hour ago, HockeyMike24 said:

I think it was kind of a last minute thing to add NA. Why do people want Mexico so bad? I understand it was in the first game and people want it for nostalgia. But isn't New Austin enough? I would much rather have more snowy regions personally.

For me personally it's about Spaghetti western feeling. I'm a huge Dollar trilogy fan and in RDR 1 Mexico captures perfectly that atmosphere. Sand, hot sun, dirt.

1 hour ago, Jabalous said:

The military fort at the top of the hill in El Presidio is the only visible human-built landmark as seen from New Austin. Chuparosa was also visible from Rio Bravo, bur for some reason, it wasn't created and put there for the illusion. Want to get a taste of Nuevo Paraiso? Go exploring in the area circled by red in the picture below and make sure to do it druing daytime. 

 

ssB25AU.jpg

Gonna try that later. You had my curiosity, but now you have my attention, to quote Candy from Django.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xboxeddy

I was a bit disappointed with the lower part of the map I would have liked to seen the site of the Indian massacre before that happened and also maybe a mission relating to the mystery site at repentance rock. 

 

I find it hard to believe that tumbleweed goes from booming town to ghost town in such a short time also. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nutduster

New Austin's role in this game is kind of perplexing.  I haven't played far enough in the game to see it, and won't for quite some time (I'm still only midway through chapter 3).  But before the game came out, I thought the strongest argument against the old map returning was that it would warp continuity in at least small ways since it was made pretty clear in the first game that John had never been to New Austin before.  There was speculation afterward that Arthur might travel to NA alone, but it seems that the real answer was simply that they were willing to warp continuity to suit what they wanted to do.

 

As far as why they did it, I don't really think "to please the fans" is the answer, nor is "because we couldn't think of a way to keep them out of it if they were already in West Elizabeth."  It is an unholy amount of work to update a map like that, even if they kept basically the same geography (which they did).  There has to be more to it than just wanting to set a small part of the last leg of the story there.  I definitely think it will be more utilized in Online, and I also retain a modest hope for RDR Remastered DLC.  Just having NA there and ready to go already gives them a good running start on remastering or remaking the previous game if they want to, and it would seem like the most compelling reason of all for it to have been included - any other motive could have been dealt with in some other way and saved them a lot of work.

 

5 minutes ago, Xboxeddy said:

I find it hard to believe that tumbleweed goes from booming town to ghost town in such a short time also. 

 

That's actually not terribly unrealistic for the frontier.  Towns sprang up from nothing in weeks because of a trade route, railroad line or gold rush; they would just as quickly dry up and blow away if there was no gold left, no more trade or the railroad stopped running through (clashes with Indians also, on occasion, given how small the populations of most of those towns were).  The whole trope of a western ghost town came about because of all these quickly-abandoned frontier towns just sitting out there in the territories.

Edited by Nutduster
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xboxeddy
4 minutes ago, Nutduster said:

New Austin's role in this game is kind of perplexing.  I haven't played far enough in the game to see it, and won't for quite some time (I'm still only midway through chapter 3).  But before the game came out, I thought the strongest argument against the old map returning was that it would warp continuity in at least small ways since it was made pretty clear in the first game that John had never been to New Austin before.  There was speculation afterward that Arthur might travel to NA alone, but it seems that the real answer was simply that they were willing to warp continuity to suit what they wanted to do.

 

As far as why they did it, I don't really think "to please the fans" is the answer, nor is "because we couldn't think of a way to keep them out of it if they were already in West Elizabeth."  It is an unholy amount of work to update a map like that, even if they kept basically the same geography (which they did).  There has to be more to it than just wanting to set a small part of the last leg of the story there.  I definitely think it will be more utilized in Online, and I also retain a modest hope for RDR Remastered DLC.  Just having NA there and ready to go already gives them a good running start on remastering or remaking the previous game if they want to, and it would seem like the most compelling reason of all for it to have been included - any other motive could have been dealt with in some other way and saved them a lot of work.

 

That's actually not terribly unrealistic for the frontier.  Towns sprang up from nothing in weeks because of a trade route, railroad line or gold rush; they would just as quickly dry up and blow away if there was no gold left, no more trade or the railroad stopped running through.  The whole trope of a western ghost town came about because of all these quickly-abandoned frontier towns just sitting out there in the territories.

 I agree that it will be more online based use for the lower map and also hold out hope for a remastered rdr.

 

i was referring to the state of decay vs the amount of time it covers also the differences between the McFarland ranch then and now (now and then?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThroatSlasher2

My biggest problem is that they break continuity when it's something big and important but then keep it when it isn't

 

Retcon the timeline of massive things like the wiping out of the Van der Linde gang who in RDR1 were thought to have dismantled slowly and with a wimper. A true sad ending. In RDR2 instead, the gang is completely destroyed and wiped out in matter of months by the pinkertons, but that's okay to retcon in Rockstar's opinion. The story is good enough that I don't really give a sh*t about that.

 

But you can't make John interact with 90% of New Austin because he never went there though! Oh no! Can't allow that! Let's make 1/3 of the map completely useless and barren and then tell the fans its our biggest map yet. 

 

Yeah, no. 

 

Hopefully we get some SP DLC to flesh the sh*t out of it because right now? It's an atrocity.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paro93
14 minutes ago, Nutduster said:

New Austin's role in this game is kind of perplexing.  I haven't played far enough in the game to see it, and won't for quite some time (I'm still only midway through chapter 3).  But before the game came out, I thought the strongest argument against the old map returning was that it would warp continuity in at least small ways since it was made pretty clear in the first game that John had never been to New Austin before.  There was speculation afterward that Arthur might travel to NA alone, but it seems that the real answer was simply that they were willing to warp continuity to suit what they wanted to do.

 

As far as why they did it, I don't really think "to please the fans" is the answer, nor is "because we couldn't think of a way to keep them out of it if they were already in West Elizabeth."  It is an unholy amount of work to update a map like that, even if they kept basically the same geography (which they did).  There has to be more to it than just wanting to set a small part of the last leg of the story there.  I definitely think it will be more utilized in Online, and I also retain a modest hope for RDR Remastered DLC.  Just having NA there and ready to go already gives them a good running start on remastering or remaking the previous game if they want to, and it would seem like the most compelling reason of all for it to have been included - any other motive could have been dealt with in some other way and saved them a lot of work.

 

 

That's actually not terribly unrealistic for the frontier.  Towns sprang up from nothing in weeks because of a trade route, railroad line or gold rush; they would just as quickly dry up and blow away if there was no gold left, no more trade or the railroad stopped running through (clashes with Indians also, on occasion, given how small the populations of most of those towns were).  The whole trope of a western ghost town came about because of all these quickly-abandoned frontier towns just sitting out there in the territories.

I don't really believe in RDR remaster now. They would have to improve NA considerably, since there are some differences, and NA in RDR2 don't have barely any interiors, way less than the first game actually.

It's pretty clear to me that NA in 2 is just an online playgrond.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nutduster
4 minutes ago, ThroatSlasher2 said:

But you can't make John interact with 90% of New Austin because he never went there though! Oh no! Can't allow that! Let's make 1/3 of the map completely useless and barren and then tell the fans its our biggest map yet. 

 

Yeah, no. 

 

Hopefully we get some SP DLC to flesh the sh*t out of it because right now? It's an atrocity.

 

An atrocity? Calm down.

 

Also, Rockstar never said directly it was their biggest map yet (and even with NA it still isn't bigger than GTA V).  Time to put that myth to bed finally.  They didn't market it that way because it was never their biggest map.  Some media outlet said it and others picked it up from there, it seems.  It's their richest map (at least the non-NA parts), but not their biggest.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jabalous
33 minutes ago, tonko said:

Gonna try that later. You had my curiosity, but now you have my attention, to quote Candy from Django.

When you do, report what you saw/heard (just not to spoil which sense that will tickle you).  

 

;) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paddymcg

I don't get the argument that 4 years wasn't enough time for Tumbleweed to become a ghost town, Armadillo to be rid of Cholera, McFarlanes ranch to build a barn and a few shops and Thieves Landing to open a few shops.

 

All of those changes are due to the railroad moving to Blackwater, that was the turning point in the years between the end of RDR2 and beginning of RDR1. The trains then bypassed Tumbleweed, Armadillo became the new Tumbleweed, McFarlanes Ranch would have had a lot more traffic and so expanded because of it and Thieves Landing was cleaned up a bit because of its proximity to Blackwater. 

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.