Why Rockstar forgot about the old gangs of the new austin from RDR1?

[Old Man With No Name]

As old player of RDR1, there was much more gangs for just new austin. Bill Williamsons gang was only seen in the missions. In the open world, there was a Bollard Twins Gang, Waltons Gang, Treasure Hunters gang and Banditos gang(fort mercer only) for the new austin.

But in the RDR2, there is only Del Lobos gang in the new austin. Even in the epilgoue and Thats all. Just del lobos gang. I wonder how new austin become a gangland in 4 years.

Edited February 15, 2021 by GroveStGTAV

[DarkDayz]

1 hour ago, GroveStGTAV said:

As old player of RDR1, there was much more gangs for just new austin. Bill Williamsons gang was only seen in the missions. In the open world, there was a Bollard Twins Gang, Waltons Gang, Treasure Hunters gang and Banditos gang(fort mercer only) for the new austin.

But in the RDR2, there is only Del Lobos gang in the new austin. Even in the epilgoue and Thats all. Just del lobos gang. I wonder how new austin become a gangland in 4 years.

 

Yeah. There are lot of things that are a bit unrealistic for me to happen in the 4 year gap between the first and second game. This that you mention, Tumbleweed becoming derelict, the Pacific Union Railroad camp. I wish that they had at least demonstrated in the world some signs of these things happening so that it was more believable.

 

Things beginning to be built, things starting to become deserted, they could have even had a small segment of story that ended the Del Lobos and new gangs start to emerge. I think because we don't see it really in game until 1907, they could have done so much more to link together the games given the closeness of the timeframes.

 

4 years is realistic and all of those things can happen, but in the context of how little the rest of the map changes from 1899-1907 in 8 years, the things that happen to New Austin and Nuevo in those 4 years become way less believable.

 

Edited February 15, 2021 by DarkDayz

[reeversky]

Yeah, the removal of the old gangs in New Austin is one of the many things that make that area of RDR 2's map seem very lackluster. I really think the addition of New Austin must have been an afterthought late in the development. 

[billiejoearmstrong8]

9 minutes ago, reeversky said:

Yeah, the removal of the old gangs in New Austin is one of the many things that make that area of RDR 2's map seem very lackluster. I really think the addition of New Austin must have been an afterthought late in the development. 

 

I think it was always going to be there, it feels like building off the original map was always the plan, it's more just that they didn't know what to do with it. In RDR John's not even really meant to have been there before. They fudged that a bit to allow him to go there in RDR2 but I think they could only fudge it so much, if he did too much there it would've been ridiculous and repetitive and if Arthur/the gang had done stuff there earlier in the game it would've been even more so. I like that it's there but I'm not really sure what they should've done with it.

[Lemoyne outlaw]

i agree there were some cool gangs down there. my favorite was the waltons gang. i would just assume with the plague going on that most gangs moved to where they could be safer and more people around to rob.

[cp1dell]

I'm pretty sure based on some stuff people have found in the files and posted in the Beta Hunt thread, that the New Austin we have was supposed to be 1899 New Austin. Probably would have been a lot different if they let us access it as Arthur in 1899, and had a 1907 version for John.

 

I'll forever drool over the idea of Arthur coming back from Guarma, only to be dropped off of the coast of New Austin, and having to fight his way through that hellish landscape, the Del Lobos, cholera-ridden Armadillo, all while realizing that the reality of escaping out west was nothing but a fool's dream. Would have made Chapter V ten times better if they didn't want to further develop Guarma and have it be RDR2's version of Mexico and the Mexico mission strands.

[DarkDayz]

2 hours ago, cp1dell said:

I'm pretty sure based on some stuff people have found in the files and posted in the Beta Hunt thread, that the New Austin we have was supposed to be 1899 New Austin. Probably would have been a lot different if they let us access it as Arthur in 1899, and had a 1907 version for John.

 

I'll forever drool over the idea of Arthur coming back from Guarma, only to be dropped off of the coast of New Austin, and having to fight his way through that hellish landscape, the Del Lobos, cholera-ridden Armadillo, all while realizing that the reality of escaping out west was nothing but a fool's dream. Would have made Chapter V ten times better if they didn't want to further develop Guarma and have it be RDR2's version of Mexico and the Mexico mission strands.

 

New Austin is definitely an afterthought given the map leak two years before release. And you are right that it definitely suits a 1899 timeline much more, interesting.

[ViktorFekete]

14 hours ago, cp1dell said:

I'm pretty sure based on some stuff people have found in the files and posted in the Beta Hunt thread, that the New Austin we have was supposed to be 1899 New Austin. Probably would have been a lot different if they let us access it as Arthur in 1899, and had a 1907 version for John.

 

I'll forever drool over the idea of Arthur coming back from Guarma, only to be dropped off of the coast of New Austin, and having to fight his way through that hellish landscape, the Del Lobos, cholera-ridden Armadillo, all while realizing that the reality of escaping out west was nothing but a fool's dream. Would have made Chapter V ten times better if they didn't want to further develop Guarma and have it be RDR2's version of Mexico and the Mexico mission strands.

I agree with you. The whole Chapter 5 is just cries for additional content. For me, it is the worst and most pointless Chapter, because it is so empty and I always thought just like you that originally it included New Austin with Arthur fighting the way back to the rest of the gang. My guess is that it was changed during development and they maybe just decided to simplify it to what we see now. That Chapter is so bad for me, and not cause I don't like Guarma, but cause it's so different.

[cp1dell]

10 hours ago, ViktorFekete said:

I agree with you. The whole Chapter 5 is just cries for additional content. For me, it is the worst and most pointless Chapter, because it is so empty and I always thought just like you that originally it included New Austin with Arthur fighting the way back to the rest of the gang. My guess is that it was changed during development and they maybe just decided to simplify it to what we see now. That Chapter is so bad for me, and not cause I don't like Guarma, but cause it's so different.

It’s really obvious that based on the beta/cut content for Guarma, that it was basically going to be the equivalent of going to, and being stuck in Mexico like in RDR1. If they developed the whole island, let you get a horse and weapons, free roam, add more missions and remove the back to back linearity of it, it would have been a great experience just like in RDR1. Instead we got Uncharted-lite.

 

There’s no proof, but fighting your way through New Austin as Arthur would have been an interesting experience, especially paired with the whole idea him and the gang had of the west being a wonderful place to get some land and settle down. Just something I’ve thought of since apparently Arthur was able to go there at some point. Even the Tumbleweed Sheriff has lines where he recognizes Arthur. Would have been a nice alternative since they scrapped the rest of Guarma, but kept New Austin.

[fuzzyballs01]

On 2/15/2021 at 5:04 PM, GroveStGTAV said:

As old player of RDR1, there was much more gangs for just new austin. Bill Williamsons gang was only seen in the missions. In the open world, there was a Bollard Twins Gang, Waltons Gang, Treasure Hunters gang and Banditos gang(fort mercer only) for the new austin.

But in the RDR2, there is only Del Lobos gang in the new austin. Even in the epilgoue and Thats all. Just del lobos gang. I wonder how new austin become a gangland in 4 years.

1) there's a 4 year gap between epilogue and RDR1

2) there are gangs in RDR2 they didn't have in 1

3) they had to make it work for online too, and I don't think having a gang that's been around for what, 7 years? works

4) civilisation pretty much ended at Armadillo when Tumbleweed was abandoned, sure you had a few ranches and small settlements, but the last town that far west is Armadillo, why wouldn't gangs move out onto the frontier and rob people?

5) why said they forgot about it? they started working on it when RDR1 released, they just removed them for obvious reasons

 

really, that seems to be one of those facts nobody knows, they released RDR1 to push the boundaries of the PS3, and immediately after they started work on RDR2, and 8 years later they pushed the boundaries of the PS4

it's why the map is so similar, they stripped it down to it's bare bones, added new areas to it and built it back up better, which is why that Mexican city and the whole low res map is still in the game

I always figured they'd just re-add it with the last story mission

Edited February 17, 2021 by fuzzyballs01

[Cyper]

Tumbleweed is very secluded because it is deep into the desert. Further the town is literally harassed by Del Lobos in RDR2. The place is clearly struggeling if you talk to the sherif there. The last nail in the coffin for Tumbleweed is when it is decided that the town would not get its own traintrack making it even more secluded. By 1911 it is taken over by gangs. Armadillo on the other hand got trains there coming from Blackwater making it connected to the civilized world. Law and order is restored once the period of cholera is over so it survives.

 

It makes sense that there aren't much gangs in New Austin because honestly what can gangs steal there? Its only poor people, a few ranches and rundown houses. The only real town is Tumbleweed. Plus there is a cholera outbreak. Even Bonnie Mcfarlane and her father left the ranch during this period. For some reason Del Lobos are present there in the epilogue periof in RDR2 but but gone in RDR1. Del Lobos also harass Armadillo despite the fact that it is a poor town with its inhabitants infected by cholera. The bank in town, as much else, is closed as well. Only living business is basically a bar and someone working hart to make enough coffins for all dead bodies.

Edited March 10, 2021 by Cyper

[The Tracker]

2 hours ago, Cyper said:

Del Lobos also harass Armadillo despite the fact that it is a poor town with its inhabitants infected by cholera. The bank in town, as much else, is closed as well. Only living business is basically a bar and someone working hart to make enough coffins for all dead bodies.

I'm sorry, but how can you forget about HERBERT MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!

Edited March 10, 2021 by The Tracker

[Badman_]

RDR2 is a reimagination of the RDR1 universe. I think it's natural that some things were left behind.

[Old Man With No Name]

 

Im found o'driscoll's in the new austin lol I know its a glitch but it could good detail that last remaining outlaws from the east went to west.

 

6 hours ago, Wolfman_ said:

RDR2 is a reimagination of the RDR1 universe. I think it's natural that some things were left behind.

They left a lot of things behind. Such as Landon Ricketts role in the Blackwater massacre, Marshall Johnson's armadillo sherrif position since 1897, Macfarline's ranch train station(which is recently completed in rdr1 but its in the rdr2 too) Macfarline's ranch barn(which is completed when boonie was a little girl. But its missing in rdr2)

 

Also so much people didn't noticed that: There was a abandoned native camp in the new austin. Near pike's basin. It was surrounded by outlaws in the mission. But in RDR2, there is nothing in that area.

Edited March 11, 2021 by GroveStGTAV

[RJX74]

I found that so weird too. When Rockstar made Liberty City Stories, they showed how a lot of the gangs grew into their GTA 3 versions (eg how the Diablos took Hepburn Heights from the Leones etc).

[Jeansowaty]

On 3/22/2021 at 3:32 PM, RJX74 said:

I found that so weird too. When Rockstar made Liberty City Stories, they showed how a lot of the gangs grew into their GTA 3 versions (eg how the Diablos took Hepburn Heights from the Leones etc).

Then again in VCS they turned the gangs upside down compared to what we have seen in VC. And that was just 2 years.