RDR III – A Narrative Overview

[DarkDayz]

3 hours ago, Space Cowboy said:

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.

I am not in favour of either. I am indifferent. My argument really is the work they have done to unify the narratives of both games and seemingly ignoring Red Dead Revolver in the series’ chronology. It makes it very difficult for me to foresee the next title not being RDRIII and a continuation of the story in some way making the ultimate gaming trilogy. It would feel almost odd to do anything else at this point, at least for me and only relevant to the next game.

 

It’s like them releasing Star Wars Episode III and it has nothing to do with the prior two. Weird.

 

I think the possibility of a completely new story and new characters will only happen after the next game, and that’s if they think it’s appropriate to further explore the genre past the next game. Which I think they won’t personally. I think they’ll be done after the next one.

 

But that said, there are ways to unify it and still get what you’re asking for. Reliving the years of RDRI but from the perspective of Sadie and her journey. That’s something I’d like. Obviously it would have no affiliation with anything revolving around Dutch or the map we know.

 

Edited August 26 by DarkDayz

[Edward RDRIII]

1 hour ago, DarkDayz said:

I am not in favour of either. I am indifferent. My argument really is the work they have done to unify the narratives of both games and seemingly ignoring Red Dead Revolver in the series’ chronology. It makes it very difficult for me to foresee the next title not being RDRIII and a continuation of the story in some way making the ultimate gaming trilogy. It would feel almost odd to do anything else at this point, at least for me and only relevant to the next game.

 

It’s like them releasing Star Wars Episode III and it has nothing to do with the prior two. Weird.

 

I think the possibility of a completely new story and new characters will only happen after the next game, and that’s if they think it’s appropriate to further explore the genre past the next game. Which I think they won’t personally. I think they’ll be done after the next one.

 

But that said, there are ways to unify it and still get what you’re asking for. Reliving the years of RDRI but from the perspective of Sadie and her journey. That’s something I’d like. Obviously it would have no affiliation with anything revolving around Dutch or the map we know.

 

I think the next Red Dead game will be the last one too, GTA will always exist of course, but alongside it perhaps Rockstar will move to a sci-fi franchise like Half-Life or whatever.

[Edward RDRIII]

 

You know what? Perhaps Jack being the protagonist of RDR3 wouldn't be so bad.

[Jisoo]

What I always liked about Jacks story is that whatever happens to him after he kills Ross is up to the players interpretation, and I think its a perfect final moment in the timeline in 1914. 

 

Jack also appears to be quite disturbed (rightly so) when you play as him during shootouts with lines like: 

• I hate lawmen more than anything!
• I got nothin' to live for, anyway!
• My ma would turn in her grave.
• I wasn't always like this, miss.
• This what I've become? A horse killer?

Even if Jacks story played out 25 years prior so it still takes place in "the wild west", it wouldnt really be realistic to give him a redemption-arc since he himself blew the chance he got when he went back for Ross - something none of the people who cared for him would've wanted. 

[BigBoyBertram]

25 minutes ago, Jisoo said:

What I always liked about Jacks story is that whatever happens to him after he kills Ross is up to the players interpretation, and I think its a perfect final moment in the timeline in 1914. 

 

Jack also appears to be quite disturbed (rightly so) when you play as him during shootouts with lines like: 

• I hate lawmen more than anything!
• I got nothin' to live for, anyway!
• My ma would turn in her grave.
• I wasn't always like this, miss.
• This what I've become? A horse killer?

Even if Jacks story played out 25 years prior so it still takes place in "the wild west", it wouldnt really be realistic to give him a redemption-arc since he himself blew the chance he got when he went back for Ross - something none of the people who cared for him would've wanted. 

 

EXACTLY!

 

Most people that are interested in a Jack Marston game just want an early Mafia type game with maybe a section where you get to be in WWI. It's an interesting time period, but it shouldn't be a Red Dead game, at least not a game following Jack Marston. 

 

Some things are better left unsaid, and what happens to Jack Marston is one of those. The point of Red Dead Redemption's ending and why it was so powerful was because he threw away his future to do something that didn't even satisfy him in the end. No game set after he kills Ross would ever be as coherent and impactful. 

[Edward RDRIII]

9 hours ago, BigBoyBertram said:

 

EXACTLY!

 

Most people that are interested in a Jack Marston game just want an early Mafia type game with maybe a section where you get to be in WWI. It's an interesting time period, but it shouldn't be a Red Dead game, at least not a game following Jack Marston. 

 

Some things are better left unsaid, and what happens to Jack Marston is one of those. The point of Red Dead Redemption's ending and why it was so powerful was because he threw away his future to do something that didn't even satisfy him in the end. No game set after he kills Ross would ever be as coherent and impactful. 

But thinking about it, Jack is the only character who appears in all time periods of Redemption 1 and Redemption 2: 1899, 1907, 1911 and 1914. Indirectly Jack is the main character of both games, he is one of the only three remaining gunslingers from the Van der Linde gang who survives alongside Charles and Sadie, in my opinion he deserves a game of his own. Also the game being set between 1914 and 1918 don't mean Jack has to fight in World War 1, he is a outlaw and could very well don't give a damn if he is recruited or not.

[BigBoyBertram]

26 minutes ago, Edward RDRIII said:

But thinking about it, Jack is the only character who appears in all time periods of Redemption 1 and Redemption 2: 1899, 1907, 1911 and 1914. Indirectly Jack is the main character of both games, he is one of the only three remaining gunslingers from the Van der Linde gang who survives alongside Charles and Sadie, in my opinion he deserves a game of his own. Also the game being set between 1914 and 1918 don't mean Jack has to fight in World War 1, he is a outlaw and could very well don't give a damn if he is recruited or not.

 

Honestly man, I'd just worry they'd mess it up. Red Dead Redemption ended so perfectly I'd hate for that legacy and impact to be diminished. But yeah, it is pretty interesting that Jack is the only character to be in every time period, except for one other character.  Do you know who that character is? Edgar Ross. SPOOKY

[DarkDayz]

18 hours ago, Jisoo said:

What I always liked about Jacks story is that whatever happens to him after he kills Ross is up to the players interpretation, and I think its a perfect final moment in the timeline in 1914. 

 

Jack also appears to be quite disturbed (rightly so) when you play as him during shootouts with lines like: 

• I hate lawmen more than anything!
• I got nothin' to live for, anyway!
• My ma would turn in her grave.
• I wasn't always like this, miss.
• This what I've become? A horse killer?

Even if Jacks story played out 25 years prior so it still takes place in "the wild west", it wouldnt really be realistic to give him a redemption-arc since he himself blew the chance he got when he went back for Ross - something none of the people who cared for him would've wanted. 

 

18 hours ago, BigBoyBertram said:

Some things are better left unsaid, and what happens to Jack Marston is one of those. The point of Red Dead Redemption's ending and why it was so powerful was because he threw away his future to do something that didn't even satisfy him in the end. No game set after he kills Ross would ever be as coherent and impactful. 

 

Yes exactly that. After RDRI and RDRII respectively, Jack's decision becomes really unlikeable and his character is unsalvageable really. I wouldn't want to play as him even if I could.

 

8 hours ago, Edward RDRIII said:

But thinking about it, Jack is the only character who appears in all time periods of Redemption 1 and Redemption 2: 1899, 1907, 1911 and 1914. Indirectly Jack is the main character of both games, he is one of the only three remaining gunslingers from the Van der Linde gang who survives alongside Charles and Sadie, in my opinion he deserves a game of his own. Also the game being set between 1914 and 1918 don't mean Jack has to fight in World War 1, he is a outlaw and could very well don't give a damn if he is recruited or not.

 

American's did not join nor draft into WW1 until 1917 anyway, so they do have three years to play with. A lot of people state that the war starts right as RDR1 ends, but for some reason unbeknownst to me, they have literally no idea that it takes place in Europe and Woodrow Wilson pledged neutrality, until the German's were ruthless in submarine warfare and Woodrow Wilson practically had no choice but to declared war on Germany in 1917. American public opinion wasn't shared, they did not want to join. In May 1917, because of a lack of trained volunteers, the Selective Service Act was passed which required all men in the U.S between the age of 21-30 to register for military service. Within a few months of that, they had 100 million registrations in response. By the end of the war in 1918, this number grew to 24 million men. Because of the nature of the age criteria, 21 year olds would be conscribed first, 22 and so on. So Jack would be fairly high up on the priority list if he did register, which personally I don't think he would have. The number for American's who actually served is 4.8 million despite 10 million registrants, 2.8 of those were through the Selective Service Act. With all that said we can't say for sure if Jack would have actually got involved, hell, he was 19 in 1914, which probably puts him around 21-22 at time of conscription which is an ideal age. However, he had survival skills and could have easily dodged the draft, which I think he would have given his hatred for the government. He spent his entire life running from the law, and then watched them kill everyone he loved in cold blood. I just don't think that's a good motivation to sign up to the army.

 

Edited August 27 by DarkDayz

[Edward RDRIII]

7 hours ago, BigBoyBertram said:

 

Honestly man, I'd just worry they'd mess it up. Red Dead Redemption ended so perfectly I'd hate for that legacy and impact to be diminished. But yeah, it is pretty interesting that Jack is the only character to be in every time period, except for one other character.  Do you know who that character is? Edgar Ross. SPOOKY

Oh yeah, I forgot about Ross, what I think Rockstar could do with Jack is turn him into a weapons, drugs or vehicles smuggler. RDR1 touches on the opium drug deals with one of its side missions, there's also the World War 1 weapons and vehicles being exported to other countries even before the americans joined the war, the vehicles weren't that good yet, which still gives horses more use than them on rough terrains, but the weapons were getting even more powerful than the ones his father and Arthur were used to, which would let us see how Jack with his gunslinger skills would make the best of them, he don't got nothing left to loose, which could make him more violent than any of the Van der Linde gang characters, a mix between Arthur and Micah, depending of the situation. This RDR3 would take place from the Yukon, which he already went there before with his family, all the way to the Baja California Sur, exploring the western coast of the three main countries of North America.

Edited August 27 by Edward RDRIII
Comment corrected.

[Edward RDRIII]

50 minutes ago, DarkDayz said:

 

 

Yes exactly that. After RDRI and RDRII respectively, Jack's decision becomes really unlikeable and his character is unsalvageable really. I wouldn't want to play as him even if I could.

 

 

American's did not join nor draft into WW1 until 1917 anyway, so they do have three years to play with. A lot of people state that the war starts right as RDR1 ends, but for some reason unbeknownst to me have literally no idea that it takes place in Europe and Woodrow Wilson pledged neutrality, until the German's were ruthless in submarine warfare and Woodrow Wilson practically had no choice but to declared war on Germany in 1917. American public opinion wasn't shared, they did not want to join. In May 1917, because of a lack of trained volunteers, the Selective Service Act was passed which required all men in the U.S between the age of 21-30 to register for military service. Within a few months of that, they had 100 million registrations in response by the end of the war in 1918, this number grew to 24 million men. Because of the nature of the age criteria, 21 year olds would be conscribed first, 22 and so on. So Jack would be fairly high up on the priority list if he did register, which personally I don't think he would have. The number for American's who actually served is 4.8 million despite 10 million registrants, 2.8 of those were through the Selective Service Act. With all that said we can't say for sure if Jack would have actually got involved, hell, he was 19 in 1914, which probably puts him around 21-22 at time of conscription which is an ideal age. However, he had survival skills and could have easily dodged the draft, which I think he would have given his hatred for the government. He spent his entire life running from the law, and then watched them kill everyone he loved in cold blood. I just don't think that's a good motivation to sign up to the army.

 

If anything his hatred for the system could just make him into a brand new Dutch van der Linde, either mostly alone by himself or creating a gang not to fight change anymore, because change has already came, but simply to get rich and give others like him, which lives have been ruined by the government, a chance to fight back and survive from it.

[DarkDayz]

7 hours ago, Edward RDRIII said:

Oh yeah, I forgot about Ross, what I think Rockstar could do with Jack is turn him into a weapons, drugs or vehicles smuggler. RDR1 touches on the opium drug deals with one of its side missions, there's also the World War 1 weapons and vehicles being exported to other countries even before the americans joined the war, the vehicles weren't that good yet, which still gives horses more use than them on rough terrains, but the weapons were getting even more powerful than the ones his father and Arthur were used to, which would let us see how Jack with his gunslinger skills would make the best of them, he don't got nothing left to loose, which could make him more violent than any of the Van der Linde gang characters, a mix between Arthur and Micah, depending of the situation. This RDR3 would take place from the Yukon, which he already went there before with his family, all the way to the Baja California Sur, exploring the western coast of the three main countries of North America.

 

6 hours ago, Edward RDRIII said:

If anything his hatred for the system could just make him into a brand new Dutch van der Linde, either mostly alone by himself or creating a gang not to fight change anymore, because change has already came, but simply to get rich and give others like him, which lives have been ruined by the government, a chance to fight back and survive from it.

 

Honestly I just don't see Jack surviving past 1920. The luxury his father and Arthur had is that Dutch steered them right in their young foolishness and they had a unit to protect them should anything go wrong. His days were always numbered as far as I'm concerned. We have to remember that Arthur and John ran with a gang for 20 or so years for them to hold their own like they do. John literally only started teaching him to use a weapon before the end of the game. I just don't see Jack living long. When you think of it he probably should have died soon after his mother. The only reason he didn't is so that there was someone to play after John died if we're honest, plot convenience.

 

Edited August 27 by DarkDayz

[Edward RDRIII]

9 hours ago, DarkDayz said:

 

 

Honestly I just don't see Jack surviving past 1920. The luxury his father and Arthur had is that Dutch steered them right in their young foolishness and they had a unit to protect them should anything go wrong. His days were always numbered as far as I'm concerned. We have to remember that Arthur and John ran with a gang for 20 or so years for them to hold their own like they do. John literally only started teaching him to use a weapon before the end of the game. I just don't see Jack living long. When you think of it he probably should have died soon after his mother. The only reason he didn't is so that there was someone to play after John died if we're honest, plot convenience.

 

Now you're underestimating him too much, John taught him the essential surviving skills. Also, if Dutch managed to start a gang of his own and become a "shield" for Arthur and John, why can't Jack do the same and become this shield to his people too? Dutch wasn't always old and experienced, he ran away from home still as a kid and managed to survive until he was 56 years old.

[DarkDayz]

On 8/28/2022 at 6:22 AM, Edward RDRIII said:

Now you're underestimating him too much, John taught him the essential surviving skills. Also, if Dutch managed to start a gang of his own and become a "shield" for Arthur and John, why can't Jack do the same and become this shield to his people too? Dutch wasn't always old and experienced, he ran away from home still as a kid and managed to survive until he was 56 years old.

Yeah you’re probably right. But I think Dutch by nature of his upbringing is far more intelligent than the gang or Jack. At least before desperation got him. I just don’t think Jack is smart. We see he isn’t a few years before we play as him in some of Johns last missions, and then that bad decision he made. It’s not so much about his ability to survive, just his foolishness and probability of getting himself into a situation that nobody could walk away from.

 

[Edward RDRIII]

8 hours ago, DarkDayz said:

Yeah you’re probably right. But I think Dutch by nature of his upbringing is far more intelligent than the gang or Jack. At least before desperation got him. I just don’t think Jack is smart. We see he isn’t a few years before we play as him in some of Johns last missions, and then that bad decision he made. It’s not so much about his ability to survive, just his foolishness and probability of getting himself into a situation that nobody could walk away from.

 

I'm sure John and Arthur also made some poor choices and had to be saved by Dutch or Hosea when they still were young too, Dutch saved John from being killed after he killed a man when he was just 12 years old, you normally don't get born with enough intelligence and skills for a lifetime, you earn them with time.

[DarkDayz]

6 hours ago, Edward RDRIII said:

I'm sure John and Arthur also made some poor choices and had to be saved by Dutch or Hosea when they still were young too, Dutch saved John from being killed after he killed a man when he was just 12 years old, you normally don't get born with enough intelligence and skills for a lifetime, you earn them with time.

Exactly that and it’s my original point. Jack at 19 does not have said mentors and protection. He’s alone.

[Edward RDRIII]

4 hours ago, DarkDayz said:

Exactly that and it’s my original point. Jack at 19 does not have said mentors and protection. He’s alone.

Neither had Dutch back then, so perhaps he have to rely on luck or find someone older than him, like Hosea was to Dutch, to teach him what he needs.

[DarkDayz]

On 8/30/2022 at 5:52 PM, Edward RDRIII said:

Neither had Dutch back then, so perhaps he have to rely on luck or find someone older than him, like Hosea was to Dutch, to teach him what he needs.

 

I guess I'm clutching at nothing here. But it's just my opinion.

 

Anyway, side note...

 

How do you think Dutch survived for so long on his own. It's interesting what he got up to until he met Hosea. Especially in and around Chicago during that time period.

 

[Edward RDRIII]

5 hours ago, DarkDayz said:

 

I guess I'm clutching at nothing here. But it's just my opinion.

 

Anyway, side note...

 

How do you think Dutch survived for so long on his own. It's interesting what he got up to until he met Hosea. Especially in and around Chicago during that time period.

 

I guess he was forced to develop his fancy words early to survive without combat experience.