RDR III – A Narrative Overview

[Guest]

RDR III - A Narrative Overview

 

 

I’ve made this topic as a nice change from the increase in attention towards the GTA VI section of GTA Forums. I’ve been replaying RDR recently and it has really sparked my interest where the series can go from here in terms of narrative. So this thread by design is for people who are interested in the narrative aspect of the game, and where they think the series can go after the masterclass narrative of RDR II.

 

An interesting starting point for discussion - prequel or sequel. We know that the likelihood of carrying on as Jack in a sequel is pretty slim given the events of RDR ending in 1914, the year that World War 1 begins. They only have around 3 years to play with before Jack would get drafted, so I think it’s pretty much guaranteed that they will not continue the story of Jack Marston in defense of not wanting to make a war game.

 

Now, before going any further, I would like to rule out the possibility of RDR III being an entirely new world with entirely new people. Quite frankly the work they have done with Dutch and John as the two key links should carry over into the third game - and therefore we finalise the Red Dead Redemption trilogy as a three game arc for the Van Der Linde gang. The rise and fall of a gang of American outlaws. I understand that some may want an entirely new cast and story - personally not for me. We are too deep now in a multi game narrative. I’d be happy to discuss it below though! Shoot your ideas below.

 

This leaves us with the idea of a prequel. With a prequel, the main narrative arc would likely revolve around the inception of the Van Der Linde gang. Quoted below is a timeline I made of key dates from 1844 that lead up to the events of the beginning of Red Dead Redemption II. Of course, these are key narrative points, not all. It will hopefully help clarify the key objectives in the story they need to meet, so hopefully we can fill in some of the gaps, flesh out some aspects of it, or even discuss in ways certain key moments could be made better or more impactful.

 

The RDR wiki has more detailed insight into each key point, but for my graphic, I’m keeping it to the point so it’s easy to digest. I think it's favourable to tell the story from the perspective of Dutch, I think the beginning of the game will be him fleeing home and bumping into Hosea just south of Chicago, where we will see the very beginnings of the Old Guard and the Van Der Linde Gang.

 

In the graphic at the bottom, there are moments that I think don’t need narrative attention, or moments that have no date and thus can happen at any period throughout the story. As well, let me know if I have missed anything significant to the timeline, and I will add it and edit the graphic in the post.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by DarkDayz

[Lemoyne outlaw]

this is pretty good. and i have been wanting a continuation with the van der linde gang. even more so after rdr2. in rdr1 we never got to see the gang together as friends/family. we just saw john go after them to kill them. but since we got rdr2. we actually got to see the gang when it was functional. and it was amazing. the gang camps were great. and all the cool little interactions and activities were nice. i really want to see more of that. the only things on here that im not keen on is starting the gang from the beginning. i don't think we need to see the exact formation of it. but i just want to see the gang at its best. when it was doing great and had a lot of money.

 

and i would like to play as mac callander. he is someone from the gang that we don't know. but he is described a bunch throughout the story. and it would be a nice way to introduce a protagonist. we never get to see him. and we only get a few details about him and his brother. so rockstar may have stuck the character into the story. so they could work on him later. they never mentioned arthur in rdr1. but that's because he wasn't thought of yet. but what if rockstar had thrown in the name arthur by some of the characters. like if bill javier or dutch mentioned him. the player wouldn't understand. but it would tell us that there were more gang members we never met. and we would want to know more about this arthur guy. rockstar also showed us two future protagonists in gta 3 and vice city. gta 3 had toni cipriani. and gta vc had vic vance in the intro cutscene. nobody knew years later that we would play as them. but its cool looking back. i hope this thread blows up because i love reading about rdr3 ideas.

[BigBoyBertram]

Great post. 

 

I have also thought about this myself. Red Dead is my favorite gaming franchise of all time. I would love to see a RDRIII or another Red Dead game, but I don't know how it could be done. The way I see it, there are four general ways to take the franchise going forward.

 

1. A sequel to Red Dead Redemption following Jack Marston

 

This is something I absolutely do not want to see under any circumstance. It has the potential to completely ruin the ending to the first Redemption game. Now, I absolutely understand the appeal to this, as the time period and progress of technology does make it interesting. World War I was just around the corner, and such a game would coincide with the beginning of traditional Mafia organizations we see in the 20s, 30s, and 40s. I just think expanding upon what happens to Jack after he kills Ross takes away from that games powerful ending. Red Dead Redemption's ending was impactful, not just because we saw one of gaming's greatest protagonists murdered in front of us in a bold creative choice, but also because Jack threw away his life to avenge his father after everything his mother and father, as well as other gang members, did for him. He threw away his chance to be something else in one of gaming's greatest revenge tails. Making a game about Jack's life after Red Dead Redemption is a disservice to the Redemption series. Simply put, some tails are better left untold. 

 

2. A standalone game following a non-major/central Redemption character, mainly Sadie or Charles

 

This is another idea I have seen floating around, and just like with a game following Jack Marston, I do not want to see it, at least not as a standalone game. A game following Sadie or a game following Charles would make a much better DLC or smaller side project, like GTA Liberty City Stories or GTA Vice City Stories. Personally, I think neither Sadie nor Charles are meant to carry a standalone title. They are great characters, but they are also chiefly side or supporting characters. I also don't find their paths after  RDRII's epilogue to be particularly intriguing as far as a standalone game is concerned .

 

3. A Red Dead game that ditches the Van Der Linde gang and does something completely different

 

This is a something that I would potentially be interested in seeing. Leaving behind Dutch's gang would offer devs a fresh new direction and more creative freedom. Of course, if you leave legendary characters behind, then you have to start from scratch and create new franchise heroes. With some of gaming's greatest characters, this is definitely easier said than done, and any new characters would be compared relentlessly to Dutch's gang. Regardless, if Rockstar nails this it could be a breath of fresh air. Just think of the possibilities! Hell, it wouldn't even have to be set in the United States! An idea that I think would really work well may be the Russian Revolution/ Civil War, an extremely violent and transformative period that saw tremendous bloodshed, criminal activity, and massive amounts of corruption. Indeed, it is quite similar to the Wild West in many ways. Along with new technology like automatic weapons, it could be a great setting.

 

4. Another prequel following the Van Der Linde gang, thus giving RDRI and RDRII a proper trilogy. 

 

This is what I want most of all. I have grown to love these characters so much, and I feel there is a lot more to see and experience. However, it would be a tremendously challenging game to make, and I think more people should acknowledge this point. As far as gameplay is concerned, going back in time offers less technology and gameplay mechanics for the player to utilize. RDRII had semi-automatic pistols and modernized shotguns. This is all gone in a prequel game, meaning that players would be stuck with repeaters, single cartridge rifles, and a few revolvers. I would be fine with it, but many may feel limited. Besides that, another prequel would be a challenge from an open world perspective. RDRI and RDRII exist over one singular open world. RDRIII, a game potentially following the Van Der Linde gang, a group of people that traveled all over the United States, would not be able to be shown with just one open world map. Devs would have to create many different worlds to show different regions of the United States. That's a massive amount of work. Lastly, we have the narrative. This would be a challenging narrative to write for sure, as it would unfold over a long period of time, possible over a decade. Who should be the character? In my opinion, Dutch and Hosea need to be off limits, as they have set personalities. As well as this, Arthur and John would also have to be NPCs in order to show proper character development. This leaves Rockstar with the challenge of creating a third legendary Redemption protagonist from scratch. Could they do it? Maybe. Given how characters talk about Mac, I am not sure he would work. Another prequel would be a massive endeavor. 

 

It's an interesting dilemma for sure, and we aren't even positive there ever will be another Red Dead game, despite how well the franchise has done.

 

[ViktorFekete]

2 hours ago, BigBoyBertram said:

Great post. 

 

I have also thought about this myself. Red Dead is my favorite gaming franchise of all time. I would love to see a RDRIII or another Red Dead game, but I don't know how it could be done. The way I see it, there are four general ways to take the franchise going forward.

 

1. A sequel to Red Dead Redemption following Jack Marston

 

Exactly. Jack's life should remain in mistery.

 

2. A standalone game following a non-major/central Redemption character, mainly Sadie or Charles

 

For DLC yes, Charles would be more interesting, but honestly, neither of these characters have a full game potential.

 

3. A Red Dead game that ditches the Van Der Linde gang and does something completely different

 

This would be the best. New idea, fresh start, new characters. I don't want a prequel for a prequel.

 

4. Another prequel following the Van Der Linde gang, thus giving RDRI and RDRII a proper trilogy. 

 

 Yes but how? The beginning of RDR2 limits the ideas of a good prequel.

 

It's an interesting dilemma for sure, and we aren't even positive there ever will be another Red Dead game, despite how well the franchise has done.

 

 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Lemoyne outlaw said:

this is pretty good. and i have been wanting a continuation with the van der linde gang. even more so after rdr2. in rdr1 we never got to see the gang together as friends/family. we just saw john go after them to kill them. but since we got rdr2. we actually got to see the gang when it was functional. and it was amazing. the gang camps were great. and all the cool little interactions and activities were nice. i really want to see more of that. the only things on here that im not keen on is starting the gang from the beginning. i don't think we need to see the exact formation of it. but i just want to see the gang at its best. when it was doing great and had a lot of money.

 

Although I agree we don't need to see the entire backstory of the gang being formed, I believe some things are vital for us to see. Specifically when Dutch and Hosea meet and when they pick up Arthur and John. This is so important for us to see I think.

 

11 hours ago, Lemoyne outlaw said:

and i would like to play as mac callander. he is someone from the gang that we don't know. but he is described a bunch throughout the story. and it would be a nice way to introduce a protagonist. we never get to see him. and we only get a few details about him and his brother. so rockstar may have stuck the character into the story. so they could work on him later. they never mentioned arthur in rdr1. but that's because he wasn't thought of yet. but what if rockstar had thrown in the name arthur by some of the characters. like if bill javier or dutch mentioned him. the player wouldn't understand. but it would tell us that there were more gang members we never met. and we would want to know more about this arthur guy. rockstar also showed us two future protagonists in gta 3 and vice city. gta 3 had toni cipriani. and gta vc had vic vance in the intro cutscene. nobody knew years later that we would play as them. but its cool looking back. i hope this thread blows up because i love reading about rdr3 ideas.

 

Mac would be interesting and I completely agree. It seems like they have intentionally planted that seed for the future. Mac could be interesting given the stories we hear about him. What's interesting about the Callander brothers is that it is not stated when they joined the gang. So as far as I am concerned, they could by all means join a bit earlier and spend a lot of the time with gang from the earlier years. Perhaps when they started large scale robberies around 1887. Mac was known to be a huge man of great strength, Davey was more of brains - this is a duo probably irresistible to Dutch when moving to bigger robberies and needing more man power. Interestingly they seem a bit like Micah in character, although without alterior motive and instead just completely off the rails and unhinged. This would be interesting given the 'do good' narrative of RDRII. It would be interesting to flip that completely for the protagonist of III.

 

Some points of interest about Mac Callander told through RDR II.

 

Quote

• According to Charles Smith, both Callander brothers were rather wild and violent men. Hosea also mentions that Mac once went crazy and threatened to kill a whole town.
• Uncle said he once saw Mac single-handedly beat up fifteen sailors in a bar brawl.
• Bill Williamson said that whilst Mac seemed heartless in his way of living - he did indeed have a heart.
• Mac does not have a grave. This keeps his death open ended despite what Milton said of his death.
• Both brothers surname suggest they are of Scottish origins.

 

I love the Uncle insight, this could even be the moment that Mac and Davey get inducted, having impressed Dutch or other members of the gang who could have been in that same bar.

 

Potential Scottish heritage is also a good bonding opportunity for them and John given John's heritage as well. This could allow us to touch on John's upbringing a bit more when in conversation with the Callanders.

 

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by DarkDayz

[Agent Edward]

On 8/17/2022 at 1:06 AM, BigBoyBertram said:

Great post. 

 

I have also thought about this myself. Red Dead is my favorite gaming franchise of all time. I would love to see a RDRIII or another Red Dead game, but I don't know how it could be done. The way I see it, there are four general ways to take the franchise going forward.

 

1. A sequel to Red Dead Redemption following Jack Marston

 

This is something I absolutely do not want to see under any circumstance. It has the potential to completely ruin the ending to the first Redemption game. Now, I absolutely understand the appeal to this, as the time period and progress of technology does make it interesting. World War I was just around the corner, and such a game would coincide with the beginning of traditional Mafia organizations we see in the 20s, 30s, and 40s. I just think expanding upon what happens to Jack after he kills Ross takes away from that games powerful ending. Red Dead Redemption's ending was impactful, not just because we saw one of gaming's greatest protagonists murdered in front of us in a bold creative choice, but also because Jack threw away his life to avenge his father after everything his mother and father, as well as other gang members, did for him. He threw away his chance to be something else in one of gaming's greatest revenge tails. Making a game about Jack's life after Red Dead Redemption is a disservice to the Redemption series. Simply put, some tails are better left untold. 

 

2. A standalone game following a non-major/central Redemption character, mainly Sadie or Charles

 

This is another idea I have seen floating around, and just like with a game following Jack Marston, I do not want to see it, at least not as a standalone game. A game following Sadie or a game following Charles would make a much better DLC or smaller side project, like GTA Liberty City Stories or GTA Vice City Stories. Personally, I think neither Sadie nor Charles are meant to carry a standalone title. They are great characters, but they are also chiefly side or supporting characters. I also don't find their paths after  RDRII's epilogue to be particularly intriguing as far as a standalone game is concerned .

 

3. A Red Dead game that ditches the Van Der Linde gang and does something completely different

 

This is a something that I would potentially be interested in seeing. Leaving behind Dutch's gang would offer devs a fresh new direction and more creative freedom. Of course, if you leave legendary characters behind, then you have to start from scratch and create new franchise heroes. With some of gaming's greatest characters, this is definitely easier said than done, and any new characters would be compared relentlessly to Dutch's gang. Regardless, if Rockstar nails this it could be a breath of fresh air. Just think of the possibilities! Hell, it wouldn't even have to be set in the United States! An idea that I think would really work well may be the Russian Revolution/ Civil War, an extremely violent and transformative period that saw tremendous bloodshed, criminal activity, and massive amounts of corruption. Indeed, it is quite similar to the Wild West in many ways. Along with new technology like automatic weapons, it could be a great setting.

 

4. Another prequel following the Van Der Linde gang, thus giving RDRI and RDRII a proper trilogy. 

 

This is what I want most of all. I have grown to love these characters so much, and I feel there is a lot more to see and experience. However, it would be a tremendously challenging game to make, and I think more people should acknowledge this point. As far as gameplay is concerned, going back in time offers less technology and gameplay mechanics for the player to utilize. RDRII had semi-automatic pistols and modernized shotguns. This is all gone in a prequel game, meaning that players would be stuck with repeaters, single cartridge rifles, and a few revolvers. I would be fine with it, but many may feel limited. Besides that, another prequel would be a challenge from an open world perspective. RDRI and RDRII exist over one singular open world. RDRIII, a game potentially following the Van Der Linde gang, a group of people that traveled all over the United States, would not be able to be shown with just one open world map. Devs would have to create many different worlds to show different regions of the United States. That's a massive amount of work. Lastly, we have the narrative. This would be a challenging narrative to write for sure, as it would unfold over a long period of time, possible over a decade. Who should be the character? In my opinion, Dutch and Hosea need to be off limits, as they have set personalities. As well as this, Arthur and John would also have to be NPCs in order to show proper character development. This leaves Rockstar with the challenge of creating a third legendary Redemption protagonist from scratch. Could they do it? Maybe. Given how characters talk about Mac, I am not sure he would work. Another prequel would be a massive endeavor. 

 

It's an interesting dilemma for sure, and we aren't even positive there ever will be another Red Dead game, despite how well the franchise has done.

 

About the older firearms, I'm thinking about creating a topic about this eventually where we can discuss possible firearms which can be used in RDR3, I'll set the 1880's as the maximum decade and we'll search what fits into it, for sure we wouldn't see those weapons from RDR2 again: Double-Action Revolver, Semi-Automatic Pistol, Mauser Pistol, M1899 Pistol, Varmint Rifle, Bolt-Action Rifle, Carcano Rifle, Pump-Action Shotgun and Semi-Automatic Shotgun. In addition to the remaining ones I didn't talk about, Rockstar could add to RDR3: Colt Model 1851 Navy (already available in RDO), U.S. Johnson Model 1836 (owned by Jeremiah Compson/unobtainable), Volcanic Repeater Rifle Model 1855 (don't mistake it with the Volcanic Repeater Pistol from the same year), Sharps Model 1848, Kentucky Long Rifle (Jack Hinson's gun, the deadliest American Civil War sharpshooter), Sawed-Off Winchester Model 1887 (a sawed-off version of the Reapeater Shotgun) and much more.

Edited August 20, 2022 by Edward RDRIII
Comment corrected.

[BigBoyBertram]

7 hours ago, Edward RDRIII said:

About the older firearms, I'm thinking about creating a topic about this eventually where we can discuss possible firearms which can be used in RDR3, I'll set the 1880's as the maximum decade and we'll search what fits into it, for sure we wouldn't see those weapons from RDR2 again: Double-Action Revolver, Semi-Automatic Pistol, Mauser Pistol, M1899 Pistol, Varmint Rifle, Bolt-Action Rifle, Carcano Rifle, Pump-Action Shotgun and Semi-Automatic Shotgun. In addition to the remaining ones I didn't talk about, Rockstar could add to RDR3: Colt Model 1851 Navy (already available in RDO), U.S. Johnson Model 1836 (owned by Jeremiah Compson/unobtainable), Volcanic Repeater Rifle Model 1855 (don't mistake it with the Volcanic Repeater Pistol from the same year), Sharps Model 1848, Kentucky Long Rifle (Jack Hinson's gun, the deadliest American Civil War sharpshooter), Sawed-Off Winchester Model 1887 (a sawed-off version of the Reapeater Shotgun) and much more.

 

Great idea man. That could be fun. I would be fine with using whatever fire arms are in the game, but I know many people think going back further in time is limiting from a gameplay perspective. Personally, I would miss my German semi-autos, especially the C-93.

 

Heck, even RDRII got away with a few cases of using guns that didn't yet exist at the time of 1899. The semi-auto shotgun (I believe 1905) and Browning M1899 (really the M1900) weren't available at the time of the game, as they were still in the design stage. Also, I don't think the carcano existed at the time as well. None of it was really an issue though. 

 

I'd love to see what Rockstar could do.

[Agent Edward]

3 hours ago, BigBoyBertram said:

 

Great idea man. That could be fun. I would be fine with using whatever fire arms are in the game, but I know many people think going back further in time is limiting from a gameplay perspective. Personally, I would miss my German semi-autos, especially the C-93.

 

Heck, even RDRII got away with a few cases of using guns that didn't yet exist at the time of 1899. The semi-auto shotgun (I believe 1905) and Browning M1899 (really the M1900) weren't available at the time of the game, as they were still in the design stage. Also, I don't think the carcano existed at the time as well. None of it was really an issue though. 

 

I'd love to see what Rockstar could do.

The Carcano Rifle actually already existed by 1891, but for some reason Rockstar used the 1938 model which is slight different, I can't really complain though as it's the best looking gun in RDR2 lol. The Browning Auto 5 should've been locked until the epilogue, but the FN M1899 actually existed even though it didn't make its way into the market as only between 5 and 10 of them were made, unlike the FN M1900. With that being said I'm fine with the M1899 Pistol being a thing and being available to Arthur, but the Semi-Automatic Shotgun should've been available to John only as it's a gun from 1905 like you said.

[Lemoyne outlaw]

20 hours ago, BigBoyBertram said:

Personally, I would miss my German semi-autos, especially the C-93.

me too they are my favorite sidearms. i know a lot of people say that if you use the more modern weapons that your not a true western fan. but i don't care. revolvers are okay sometimes. but the pistols are just so much more fun to use. i always dual wield a semi auto pistol and mauser pistol. and it is a great combo. as much as im looking forward to a new red dead. i will be very sad to see these awesome guns out of the game.

[BigBoyBertram]

56 minutes ago, Lemoyne outlaw said:

me too they are my favorite sidearms. i know a lot of people say that if you use the more modern weapons that your not a true western fan. but i don't care. revolvers are okay sometimes. but the pistols are just so much more fun to use. i always dual wield a semi auto pistol and mauser pistol. and it is a great combo. as much as im looking forward to a new red dead. i will be very sad to see these awesome guns out of the game.

 

I've always loved that gun since I played Red Dead Redemption back in the day. It was such a cool sidearm for Dutch to use in 1911. 

18 hours ago, Edward RDRIII said:

The Carcano Rifle actually already existed by 1891, but for some reason Rockstar used the 1938 model which is slight different, I can't really complain though as it's the best looking gun in RDR2 lol. The Browning Auto 5 should've been locked until the epilogue, but the FN M1899 actually existed even though it didn't make its way into the market as only between 5 and 10 of them were made, unlike the FN M1900. With that being said I'm fine with the M1899 Pistol being a thing and being available to Arthur, but the Semi-Automatic Shotgun should've been available to John only as it's a gun from 1905 like you said.

 

Yeah, for sure. None of it ever bothered me though because those were some of the most fun weapons to use in the game. 

Edited August 21, 2022 by BigBoyBertram

[Agent Edward]

1 hour ago, BigBoyBertram said:

 

I've always loved that gun since I played Red Dead Redemption back in the day. It was such a cool sidearm for Dutch to use in 1911. 

 

Yeah, for sure. None of it ever bothered me though because those were some of the most fun weapons to use in the game. 

Dem cowpokes don't stand a chance against Submachine Gun Morgan with his two M1899 Pistols lol.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Lemoyne outlaw said:

me too they are my favorite sidearms. i know a lot of people say that if you use the more modern weapons that your not a true western fan. but i don't care. revolvers are okay sometimes. but the pistols are just so much more fun to use. i always dual wield a semi auto pistol and mauser pistol. and it is a great combo. as much as im looking forward to a new red dead. i will be very sad to see these awesome guns out of the game.

 

I mean there is still a lot to play with, I wouldn't be too disheartened. Let's say the game takes place anywhere during 1870-1899.

 

You've got an endless list of pistol models that could be utilised in latter chapters of the game. And I think this is ok. As RDR2 sits now, they lock you out of getting some guns until the latter chapters. Why not just continue this? They are arguably OP anyway and you wouldn't want them so early on in the story when it's a bit of a struggle. List below.

• Laumann Model 1891
• Schoenberger-Laumann Model 1894
• Borchardt Model 1893 (basically the semi auto present in RDR2)
• Bergmann Schmeisser Model 1893
• Mannlicher Model 1894
• Mauser Model 1896 (also in RDR2)

 

But some more fun guns from the 19th century not used in RDR2 that could be equally as fun. Some of which from the Civil War Era, which will have just happened prior to the start of the story if taking place around 1870. There are more, I just wanted to do a little bittle of a post to spark some discussion. They are quite obscure weapons, but could make for some great missions as well as some nice collectibles like we see in RDR2.

 

And don't be worried we are going off topic. This is a narrative thread and stuff like this is all relevant world building for a potential third game set as a prequel. If anybody knows of any more available in this period, please post!

 

Also worth noting, it would be ok for our character to access a gun not yet available to the public if the context is correct. There is zero reason we couldn't meet a stranger that makes obscure guns and that is our reward. In similar vein of Nigel West Dickens in RDRI and Marko Dragic in RDRII, who are by all means inventors ahead of their time.

 

Punt Gun (1872)

 

 

The mission potential with the above gun alone is off the scales.

 

Duckfoot Pistol or Volley Gun (1860)

 

Double Barrelled Canon (Civil War Era)

 

Steam Gun (Civil War Era)

 

Turret Rifle (1830-1850) - Rare

 

The Harmonica Pistol (1860's)

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2022 by DarkDayz

[drdrimes]

There's a high chance that the newest Redemption game in the future will be the last swan song of the Van der Linde gang. They did leave us nuggets, stories, articles, and even pictures of the gang in its prime, Rockstar always does these things for several reasons, one could be boldly assumed as foreshadowing. When RDR began, we are in the wild west as a semi-lawman/bounty hunter. When RDR2 began, we are in a wild west gang that is located in the civilized world during the story. Red Dead Redemption 3 is our chance to have it all, the one true dream; A wild west gang in the wild west, a crap ton of bounties, freeroam with gang members, action packed robberies, and so much more. The ending would be bittersweet, it would most likely end before the Blackwater massacre, giving us a relatively well standing gang that we unfortunately know the fates of. A bonus mention would be that we'd most likely be well off in terms of money, the gangs money wasn't lost before the Blackwater massacre, hence giving us the traditional payout at the end of the game.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Drimes

[Jisoo]

Would playing as Mac or any known gang member take away some of the "suspense" in terms of us knowing their fate before we start playing as them? Johns death was so shocking cause it was unexpected, and Arthur we could see coming (his sickness and not being mentioned in RDR1), but with Mac we know exactly how and when he dies. Im sure Rockstar could make it work, but I imagine it would be very hard to write around that. 

 

Another character I would be interested in seeing is the member who apparently betrayed them at one point and was killed in camp. Its mentioned in chapter 3 when you play dominoes with Tilly

[Lemoyne outlaw]

38 minutes ago, Jisoo said:

Would playing as Mac or any known gang member take away some of the "suspense" in terms of us knowing their fate before we start playing as them? Johns death was so shocking cause it was unexpected, and Arthur we could see coming (his sickness and not being mentioned in RDR1), but with Mac we know exactly how and when he dies. Im sure Rockstar could make it work, but I imagine it would be very hard to write around that. 

 

Another character I would be interested in seeing is the member who apparently betrayed them at one point and was killed in camp. Its mentioned in chapter 3 when you play dominoes with Tilly

but we don't know for sure if mac did die. we never saw his corpse. all we have is the word of a scummy pinkerton agent. couldn't it be possible that after the massacre mac decided he didn't want to see more killing. like when dutch shot that girl it could have triggered him. and he decided to flee the area and start a new life. i just get the feeling that there is more to the callander brothers. 

[BigBoyBertram]

1 hour ago, Lemoyne outlaw said:

but we don't know for sure if mac did die. we never saw his corpse. all we have is the word of a scummy pinkerton agent. couldn't it be possible that after the massacre mac decided he didn't want to see more killing. like when dutch shot that girl it could have triggered him. and he decided to flee the area and start a new life. i just get the feeling that there is more to the callander brothers. 

 

Maybe he made deal with Milton???

 

In all seriousness, I doubt we play as Mac. It seems pretty likely that Rockstar never intended to work with that character further. The only real line that makes him seem plausible was when Bill told Hosea that he was a vicious guy, but still had a heart. With how Lenny and Charles look at him, combined with Micah liking him, it's likely he's not the kind of character we would play as. If the Van Der Linde gang gets a proper trilogy, I think we play as a brand new, never mentioned character. Would that be tiring for a second time in a row? I'll let y'all decide. 

 

Hosea and Dutch should never be touched. Arthur and John were different men. Like John from Arthur's play time was an NPC, so should Arthur and John in a third game be NPCs. Playing as them could create conflict with narrative growth. 

 

I say give us another prequel with the Dutch's OG crew or something completely different. 

Edited August 24, 2022 by BigBoyBertram

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Jisoo said:

Would playing as Mac or any known gang member take away some of the "suspense" in terms of us knowing their fate before we start playing as them? Johns death was so shocking cause it was unexpected, and Arthur we could see coming (his sickness and not being mentioned in RDR1), but with Mac we know exactly how and when he dies. Im sure Rockstar could make it work, but I imagine it would be very hard to write around that. 

 

I thought the same thing about the prospective protagonist of RDR2 before it was released. Because of the nature of the first game, with Javier, Bill, Dutch, John and his family being the only living remnants of the old Van Der Linde gang. This means that Arthur had to die, everyone was aware of this if they played the first game. But it's the manner in which they told that story that counts. It was profound. Hell, they even tell us he is going to die before he does, which is even more impressive given how hard it hits. I advocate for the potential of playing Mac. It would be interesting. As discussed in prior comments, we don't actually know the circumstances of his death other than he was basically dead anyway when the Pinkerton's caught up to him. There is so much scope to play with there. Where did he go and what happened to him really? Can we trust was Milton said? We know he was an avid liar to the gang members throughout RDR2. Is he even dead at all? So many questions.

 

12 hours ago, Lemoyne outlaw said:

but we don't know for sure if mac did die. we never saw his corpse. all we have is the word of a scummy pinkerton agent. couldn't it be possible that after the massacre mac decided he didn't want to see more killing. like when dutch shot that girl it could have triggered him. and he decided to flee the area and start a new life. i just get the feeling that there is more to the callander brothers.  

 

Exactly.

 

10 hours ago, BigBoyBertram said:

Maybe he made deal with Milton???

 

In all seriousness, I doubt we play as Mac. It seems pretty likely that Rockstar never intended to work with that character further.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. To me it feels like they separated him from the gang before Colter to leave their options open for a third game. The secret to RDR2 being possible is that they didn't give us too much info in RDR1. Enough key building blocks to build a back story on, but not too much that you have written yourself into a corner.

 

Mac feels like the most plausible prequel character if we aren't playing as our main guys. It feels very much like they kept his death a bit open ended on purpose, as well as his appearance. We have no idea what he looks like, we know he's wild, but that's it. We don't know how he died or even if he is dead at all. So there's so much scope to build a character on.

 

Also, why are you opposed to playing as Dutch? I think it could be fantastic. And what do you mean by Dutch's OG crew? Do you mean the Old Guard of the gang, being him Hosea and Arthur? He met Hosea very young. I don't think he had a gang before meeting him.

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by DarkDayz

[Agent Edward]

2 hours ago, DarkDayz said:

 

I thought the same thing about the prospective protagonist of RDR2 before it was released. Because of the nature of the first game, with Javier, Bill, Dutch, John and his family being the only living remnants of the old Van Der Linde gang. This means that Arthur had to die, everyone was aware of this if they played the first game. But it's the manner in which they told that story that counts. It was profound. Hell, they even tell us he is going to die before he does, which is even more impressive given how hard it hits. I advocate for the potential of playing Mac. It would be interesting. As discussed in prior comments, we don't actually know the circumstances of his death other than he was basically dead anyway when the Pinkerton's caught up to him. There is so much scope to play with there. Where did he go and what happened to him really? Can we trust was Milton said? We know he was an avid liar to the gang members throughout RDR2. Is he even dead at all? So many questions.

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

I wouldn't be so sure. To me it feels like they separated him from the gang before Colter to leave their options open for a third game. The secret to RDR2 being possible is that they didn't give us too much info in RDR1. Enough key building blocks to build a back story on, but not too much that you have written yourself into a corner.

 

Mac feels like the most plausible prequel character if we aren't playing as our main guys. It feels very much like they kept his death a bit open ended on purpose, as well as his appearance. We have no idea what he looks like, we know he's wild, but that's it. We don't know how he died or even if he is dead at all. So there's so much scope to build a character on.

 

Also, why are you opposed to playing as Dutch? I think it could be fantastic. And what do you mean by Dutch's OG crew? Do you mean the Old Guard of the gang, being him Hosea and Arthur? He met Hosea very young. I don't think he had a gang before meeting him.

 

The thing about playing as Mac and seeing his death is that the game would be set around the same area and time period of RDR2, which is not a good ideia, even if Rockstar plans on making the last game of the Redemption Trilogy about the Van der Linde gang again, it has to be in a brand new map and a brand new decade of the wild west.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Edward RDRIII said:

The thing about playing as Mac and seeing his death is that the game would be set around the same area and time period of RDR2, which is not a good ideia, even if Rockstar plans on making the last game of the Redemption Trilogy about the Van der Linde gang again, it has to be in a brand new map and a brand new decade of the wild west.

 

Why don't you think it's a good idea?

[Agent Edward]

2 hours ago, DarkDayz said:

 

Why don't you think it's a good idea?

Same map, same decade, it would feel more like a DLC for RDR2, but with better graphics.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Edward RDRIII said:

Same map, same decade, it would feel more like a DLC for RDR2, but with better graphics.

Hmmm I’m not sure. For me RDRII does not feel like that despite fitting the criteria you describe.

 

A prequel would be arguably be even more different than RDRII to RDRI, and that’s because the gang came to “the map” not long before the Blackwater Massacre. They hadn’t been there for a prolonged period of time, only a few months.

 

Prior to arriving in Blackwater from The Grizzlies, they were in a different region completely but as we know slowly got closer when picking up one of the newest members (Sean) at a bar in North Elizabeth, which I can only assume is near West Elizabeth. Further back than that saw them in areas around Chicago and Ohio. A prequel would take place on a map that is mostly completely different to what we have seen so far. Worst case scenario we end up on the current map in the same way we did in RDRII, assuming the end of the game is in Blackwater.

 

But because of the nature of it being a game, and the requirement for open world exploration after the story, they probably wouldn’t end with that event anyway. So it could absolutely be an entirely new map 10 years prior to RDRII. As I say we don’t know when they joined the gang, only that it was after Arthur and John. My only issue with Mac is that I’d like to see Arthur and John join the gang when young. So I think overall Dutch is probably the best choice for narrative purposes, but that’s just me.

 

Understand about the decade though if you don’t think going further back in time will work.

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by DarkDayz

[Agent Edward]

18 minutes ago, DarkDayz said:

Hmmm I’m not sure. For me RDRII does not feel like that despite fitting the criteria you describe.

 

A prequel would be arguably be even more different than RDRII to RDRI, and that’s because the gang came to “the map” not long before the Blackwater Massacre. They hadn’t been there for a prolonged period of time, only a few months.

 

Prior to arriving in Blackwater from The Grizzlies, they were in a different region completely but as we know slowly got closer when picking up one of the newest members (Sean) at a bar in North Elizabeth, which I can only assume is near West Elizabeth. Further back than that saw them in areas around Chicago and Ohio. A prequel would take place on a map that is mostly completely different to what we have seen so far. Worst case scenario we end up on the current map in the same way we did in RDRII, assuming the end of the game is in Blackwater.

 

But because of the nature of it being a game, and the requirement for open world exploration after the story, they probably wouldn’t end with that event anyway. So it could absolutely be an entirely new map 10 years prior to RDRII. As I say we don’t know when they joined the gang, only that it was after Arthur and John. My only issue with Mac is that I’d like to see Arthur and John join the gang when young. So I think overall Dutch is probably the best choice for narrative purposes, but that’s just me.

 

Understand about the decade though if you don’t think going further back in time will work.

 

It has to go further back in time to feel different, but at the same time it also has to be in a completely new map with a more realistic size than RDR2's, like you say it's best to just play as Dutch from the moment the gang is estabilished until its peak, from 1877 to 1888 or whatever.

[Jisoo]

Do we know anything about when Annabelle was killed? I think that would be a very interesting scenario to play out, like if we get to do missions with her and see how important she was to Dutch. I see in OPs timeline its prior to 1885, but I always imagined it was closer to 1899 for some reason. The feud between the gangs are "long-standing", so naturally it must atleast be a few years.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Jisoo said:

Do we know anything about when Annabelle was killed? I think that would be a very interesting scenario to play out, like if we get to do missions with her and see how important she was to Dutch. I see in OPs timeline its prior to 1885, but I always imagined it was closer to 1899 for some reason. The feud between the gangs are "long-standing", so naturally it must atleast be a few years.

Not specific times no, we just know that he met Colm at some point after he met Arthur in 1877, they had a light partnership for a while before it went sour. The events with Annabelle and Colm’s brother started a long fued that lasted up until Colm was killed in 1899. So I think for the fued to be considered ‘long’ it has to happen before 1890 really and after say 1980. Some time during that decade I’d say is a good guesstimate.

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by DarkDayz

[crazedZ10]

I would prefer the next Red Dead game to distance itself from the van der Linde gang. My idea would be to play as a Native American separated from his tribe and thrown into the world. The character would be a blank slate which would mean that the choices you make are important. The protagonist can end up being a feared outlaw or noble gunslinger. The plot can be as simple as hunting down the gang that looted and killed your tribe, having to do favours for bunch of assholes in exchange for information about the gangs whereabouts (the standard Rockstar formula). What would be different is that your honour, or lack thereof, will determine how the story pans out. The game has to be set during the actual wild west era and unlike Redemption and Redemption 2 the narrative focuses on moving the from the relatively tame east to the wild west. 

[BigBoyBertram]

23 hours ago, Edward RDRIII said:

Same map, same decade, it would feel more like a DLC for RDR2, but with better graphics.

 

I gotta agree. Something fresh would be nice. 

[Agent Edward]

10 hours ago, BigBoyBertram said:

 

I gotta agree. Something fresh would be nice. 

RDR3 ending in the Blackwater Heist is one of the most garbage ideas out there.

[BigBoyBertram]

2 hours ago, Edward RDRIII said:

RDR3 ending in the Blackwater Heist is one of the most garbage ideas out there.

 

It should be left unseen IMO

[Space Cowboy]

I would like a Red Dead game that covers events leading up to the Civil War or the Civil War itself, with a completely new cast of characters. It would bring something new to the series since the last two games were heavily focus on the "death of the Wild West" theme, and I think this is a fresh and interesting concept. I am not too keen on having another Red Dead game with the Van Der Linde gang, it would feel too similar to RDR2's concept. New cast of characters would give R* much needed creative freedom to make something new for a change.

Likewise I wouldn't like having a game set in post-RDR1 era. It could potentially be too similar to GTA if it's set in let's say 1930s. Going back to the past is the way to go imo, if they ever decide to make another Red Dead game.

I am honestly surprised so many people here would like another game with the Van Der Linde gang instead of a new cast of characters.

[Agent Edward]

5 hours ago, BigBoyBertram said:

 

It should be left unseen IMO

I wanna see the west when it was even less civilized and a brand new map, f*ck Blackwater.