RDR III – A Narrative Overview

[sanjay3207]

15 hours ago, propanecocaine71 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Sam houser who loves westerns? Not Dan? 

Yes. Sam houser is a western fan. He was the one who pushed Rockstar San diego to make a western and all agents assets that san diego was working on were transferred to rockstar north. 

[Agent Edward]

There will be a RDR3, but I hope it isn't about the Van der Linde gang anymore, otherwise the protagonist will be doomed from the very beginning again.

 

You all better know that probably not a single asset will be created for it until the elephant in the room (GTA6) gets released next year, so we may be looking at what... 2030?

Edited March 27, 2024 by Agent Edward

[RamsaySaintEternal]

Imo RDR3 shouldn't be about the Van der Linde gang, Instead it should focus on a new cast of characters maybe around California and Nevada and this story could be set in the 1880s during The golden age of the wild west. The Van der Linde gang can def make a cameo appearance tho like we can encounter a younger Dutch, Hosea and Arthur but besides that they aren't major characters this time. I just think RDR3 needs to be a story set at the peak of The Old West as RDR1 was the end of the Wild West and RDR2 was the beginning of the end. We can be true outlaws in such a setting

Edited March 27, 2024 by RamsaySaintEternal

[Ballbreaker_]

I don't think we'll have a RDR3.

[Agent Edward]

On 3/27/2024 at 6:03 PM, RamsaySaintEternal said:

Imo RDR3 shouldn't be about the Van der Linde gang, Instead it should focus on a new cast of characters maybe around California and Nevada and this story could be set in the 1880s during The golden age of the wild west. The Van der Linde gang can def make a cameo appearance tho like we can encounter a younger Dutch, Hosea and Arthur but besides that they aren't major characters this time. I just think RDR3 needs to be a story set at the peak of The Old West as RDR1 was the end of the Wild West and RDR2 was the beginning of the end. We can be true outlaws in such a setting

It would be interesting if it was about a native american tribe this time, perhaps the protagonist could even be Rains Fall himself, making us see all the struggle that the Wapiti tribe went through between mid to late 1800's. It would also be cool if we had plenty of native american customization, like body paintings, horse paintings, etc.

 

A story about native americans also opens the possibilities for supernatural content even more, knowing that Rockstar loves them so much, take a look at this history.

 

Edited March 28, 2024 by Agent Edward

[ThirtyIR]

I dont' care about the Van Der Linde gang etc. RDR3 should take place several centuries prior - during the colonial era when settlers were taking over the Americas. It would be fun to be able to switch between a settler protagonist and a Native American one based on the missions . But the game itself should take place in the 1600s. That would be a lot of fun.

[Lemoyne outlaw]

14 hours ago, ThirtyIR said:

I dont' care about the Van Der Linde gang etc. RDR3 should take place several centuries prior - during the colonial era when settlers were taking over the Americas. It would be fun to be able to switch between a settler protagonist and a Native American one based on the missions . But the game itself should take place in the 1600s. That would be a lot of fun.

you basically described assassin's creed 3. the red dead series is set in the old west. which takes place well after the 1600s. 

[BigBoyBertram]

I've been thinking about this more and more recently. I guess I just really want another RDR Game. 

 

Personally speaking, if the next Red Dead game isn't something significantly different then I do not think it should even be made in the first place. If Rockstar goes in the direction most fans seemingly want, that being fan service, we are going to see diminishing returns. In a good story, not every person, place, or thing needs to be explained in detail. Doing this just completely zaps the magic and mystery out of a world. As such, Sadie Adler and Charles Smith had ought to remain side characters. Jack Marston should never get his own game after the events of 1914. The Van der Linde Gang's pre-1899 Past should remain exactly the way it is: Ancient History and Legend. RDR I and II are my favorite games. They are a terrific open world, narrative heavy saga. There is no need to shoehorn heavy handed elements into an already great Duology. It's perfect the way it is right now. 

 

New Cast and New Map is the way to go for Rockstar. The possibilities are endless, and I have no doubt they could make something on par, or even better than our two Red Dead Redemption Games. 

[Jisoo]

The one thing I really want is the game set somewhere between 1860 and 1890, possibly with a time jump sort of like in both 1 and 2. I dont see the appeal of post-1914 and Jacks story is perfect as it is (think it was discussed earlier in this topic). 1899-1914 is also "used up" with the first two games

 

Wouldnt mind seeing characters like Annabelle, Jenny and the Callander boys, and cameos from more familiar faces here and there similiar to how theyve done it with the GTA games. Depending on when the game is set, some of the existing cast will be too young anyway. Imagine Rob doing Johns voice again, but John is like 11 years old

 

I agree Rockstar has done a good job by not explaining things in too much detail. Like that dude in the gang who got killed for being a traitor, or the details surrounding Bessie. It does leave them with more freedom in RDR3 to write some of these into the story in some way. Karens exact fate is also something they didnt elaborate on, and thats fine.

 

With that said, I would not be suprised if Rockstar wanted to market the game as a final addition to the van der Linde gangs story, and complete the trilogy that way. The main issue here is potential fatigue and not enough "innovation" in terms of storytelling, and it being harder to write their earlier years since it has to line up with 1 and 2. Rockstar were already quite forced into how they wrote someone like Javier and could not kill him off at any point in 2 even if it would have been a good choice from a narrative point of view in one way or another. I think the worst offender here is when John gets shot at the train in chapter 6, there was no tension there from the players point of view since we knew he survived. It was a cool call-back to what he spoke about in 1 ofcourse. They did it well in 2 I feel, but my worry is it would harm the creativity and the direction they would go unless they just break the timeline which they wouldnt

Edited September 25, 2024 by Jisoo

[Lemoyne outlaw]

2 hours ago, Jisoo said:

With that said, I would not be suprised if Rockstar wanted to market the game as a final addition to the van der Linde gangs story, and complete the trilogy that way. The main issue here is potential fatigue and not enough "innovation" in terms of storytelling, and it being harder to write their earlier years since it has to line up with 1 and 2. Rockstar were already quite forced into how they wrote someone like Javier and could not kill him off at any point in 2 even if it would have been a good choice from a narrative point of view in one way or another. I think the worst offender here is when John gets shot at the train in chapter 6, there was no tension there from the players point of view since we knew he survived. It was a cool call-back to what he spoke about in 1 ofcourse. They did it well in 2 I feel, but my worry is it would harm the creativity and the direction they would go unless they just break the timeline which they wouldnt

yes i agree with you. i think a third game in the trilogy would be great. i think the mid to late 1880s would be great. it would be nice to see isaac. and even how arthur and marys relationship was. they also mention how the gang had some rough times in the past. so clearly there is some ambiguity about what they went through. and as you said there were quite a few characters mentioned that we never got to meet. i also think it would be cool to expand on how dutch and colm met and what happened between them. i also really want to see the gang further out west. half of the game is set in Louisiana. so i want to see them in states like new mexico, arizona, utah, california, idaho.

 

and i totally agree with the no tension thing. in the epilogue. when uncle gets kidnapped it doesn't feel worrying at all. even though in real life it would be a horrifying thing. we already know uncle is alive and well in rdr1. so we know uncle will be rescued and we know that whatever they do to him isn't as bad as bad as charles says it could be. i feel like it would be better if charles was taken and uncle had to step up and help big time. this would cement johns appreciation of him. and the reason why he stays at beechers hope even though he's relatively useless at the ranch. kind of like how reverend swanson saved dutch's life. and keeps him in the gang even though he doesn't do much. i also think charles or sadie should have been killed by micah. that way the story could have had a gta 4 type bittersweet ending. even though you killed the bad guy you still lost a valuable friend in the story. 

 

on a side note i wish that dutch didn't have to shoot micah for john to finish him off. even though micah is the better gunfighter. i wish there was an innovative way john could have weakened micah or somehow got an advantage over him. like how john shoots the lamp in rdr1 to get dutch off the machine gun. it doesn't feel as satisfying that micah needed to be nerfed just to be killed. 

[Jisoo]

When I played the final mission and both Charles and Sadie got wounded, I was so sure one of them would die and this whole thing about "revenge" for what Micah did would feel incredibly bittersweet knowing one/both of Johns close friends died in the process. Ive always felt Rockstar wanted to kill one of them here but decided against it just to not make the story even more sad than it already is, and give the Epilogue a nice ending by getting rid of Micah + Beechers Hope being paid off and fully built for John and his family to finally settle down (until 1 obviously)

 

But yea, that mission would have felt a lot different if Sadie and Charles were present in 1. I really like returning characters in games, but having the main characters in RDR3 be mostly unknown would be nice to avoid this "problem". The characters they left ambiguous I think would be cool to see some from, and since the gang used to travel a lot they can basically put someone like Bessie into RDR3 without much issue. We know she died and Hosea took it very hard, but when and how is unknown. 

 

It seems most the actors who worked on RDR2 is on good terms with Rockstar so if they wanted Benjamin Davis to play Dutch again, I suspect they could get him back. 

 

 

 

[Sam Wah]

I don't want another van Der Linde gang game. Doing a prequel worked after RDR1 because John was a pretty private guy. We never got that much information about his past. He wasn't going around telling his new buddy the Snake oil salesman or grave robber about his gang days, and everyone he could sit back and reminisce with were too busy shooting at him. After RDR1 we knew:

John was in a gang. Dutch was the leader of that gang. Bill and Javier were in it.

At some point they robbed a ferry. Dutch shot a girl.

They abandoned John. John started a ranch with his family.

That was about it. This allows some room for slotting in a new character we've never heard of, and creating a whole narrative around it and the downfall of the gang. John was on a mission. He wasn't going to be like "Hey Colonel Allende, did I tell you about this guy I knew named Arthur?," nor is he going to discuss him fondly with Dutch while they're pointing guns at each other. Though he probably would've been brought up at some point if RDR1 was released after RDR2, the fact that he isn't is believable enough. 

 

In RDR2 on the other hand... In RDR2 we had a lot time to reminisce. In fact characters loved reminiscing in that game. Entire missions were spent reminiscing about the good old days, and all the people they used to know, the ones they lost. We know how Dutch and Hosea met. We know how they found Arthur and John. We know what their first bank job was. We know Dutch had a wife that Colm killed. We largely know who was in the gang. We know they'll end up on that ferry in Blackwater. We know who lives and who dies (Which was also somewhat the case in RDR2, but there was room for so many new characters, most crucially Arthur). Any potential unmentioned new gang member that is also important enough to be the protagonist of their own game and either dies the heroic Red Dead protagonist death or even worse, is still alive by the time of RDR2, but somehow never gets mentioned would strain credulity IMO. RDR2 showed the death of the gang, but we already know so much about it's birth, it's not a mystery the way John's backstory was in 1. It could maybe work for a more small scale, subtle game, with less epic hijinks, grand robberies and shootouts. But that's not gonna happen. If and when RDR3 comes out it'll be at least 10 years since 2. It's gonna be large, it's gonna be grand and epic. 

 

As for playing as one of the already established characters:

Dutch goes from idealist to hardened survivor. We know. We've seen that. We've had it explained over two games. We know he's kind of a sh*thead and fraud, and probably always was. He's always going to end up in Blackwater, and finally hurling himself off that mountain top. I don't there's that much room for a grand character journey left here. 

Hosea? I dunno, maybe. He's a chill guy, and he seems to have always been a chill guy, more of a mentor character than a protagonist, even back in the day.

Mac? The psycho who gets unceremoniously killed off screen to establish how bad the Blackwater heist was? 

Davey? Same thing, except we see his corpse for two seconds. I believe it's even said in the game that the Callander boys were vicious bastards, and that's all they ever were and will be, as contrasted to Arthur. These don't sound like Red Dead protagonist material to me.

Uncle? I would actually be down with that because it's the funniest possible thing they could do. 

 

I guess I just don't see it... Now, would I play another van Der Linde gang prequel if that's what they go for? Of course, I'm a hog. Don't get me started on a Jack in 1914 game though. I would only accept that if he somehow ends up in the Russian civil war or something. Okay, that would actually slap. 

 

However I would prefer a brand new set of main characters. Way out west, San Francisco as the big city, Nevada, Oregon, Arizona territory, Mexico, Yukon, that sort of thing. 1870s, peak frontier. We could definitely intersect with the van Der Linde gang, they could even play an important role as side characters. I'm just not feeling another game centered around them and Dutch's whole liberty and faith spiel. We could be a completely different gang with a completely different worldview, we could be the law, a lone drifter, a native, a renegade, a robber baron, a lady (Hell, why not all of them at once), so many possibilities if you decouple from old Dutch.

 

Yes, this topic annoyed me enough that I made an account to get this off my chest. 

Edited January 15, 2025 by Sam Wah

[Jisoo]

Good post. An 1870-1880s setting with a new playable character disconnected from the van Der Linde gang would be where I would put it aswell (Ive written about it before in this thread). Would be nice to have some of the NPCs show up in RDR3 from previous games though. Hanging out with Hosea and Bessie for example would be a lovely callback, plus theres a lot they can do with someone like Landon Ricketts. Colm was also underused in RDR2, and I feel he could potentially be a very interesting character. 

 

I do like the idea of being a part of the gang at its very beginning, but the issue about that person just being erased from everyones memory in RDR 1 and 2 feels a little odd. Then theres the problem with plot armor amongst characters we know from the previous games. Would be nice having a clean slate regarding all of that. 

[Dick Justice]

Not-so-fun fact: the time between RDR release date and RDR2 announcement was 2,345 days. The time between RDR2 release date and today is 2,274 days. This doesn't mean much. It just kind of sucks how much longer everything takes these days. 

[Lemoyne outlaw]

On 1/15/2025 at 10:26 PM, Dick Justice said:

Not-so-fun fact: the time between RDR release date and RDR2 announcement was 2,345 days. The time between RDR2 release date and today is 2,274 days. This doesn't mean much. It just kind of sucks how much longer everything takes these days. 

yea and we still haven't gotten any new info for gta 6 in over a year. i get that game development takes a long time now. but it's a shame that we have to wait so long just for another trailer or screenshots.

[JB1982]

Been thinking a bit recently about a potential RDR3 as I play through RDR2 again and whether or not I would want to see something further with the Van Der Linde gang. May have posted thoughts along these lines before but these are were I am currently at.

 

The simple answer is yes. This is a gang that has ran together for 20 odd years prior to RDR2. For me, there is scope there for storytelling. There's all these nuggets in RDR2 about things they got up to in the past that could be mined and turned into plots and missions but we probably don't even know the half of their adventures. We probably don't even know half of the people that rode with the gang in the first place. It's perfectly reasonable, in my opinion, that people came and went from this gang over that timeframe so I think there's room for a new protagonist and new characters whilst still giving us some of the ones we are all familiar with. RDR2 did this very well and I don't see any reason why RDR3 couldn't do the same.

 

One thing that strikes me as having potential in this scenario is that there's an optional mission in Chapter 3 to play dominoes with Tilly in which Arthur mentions that Dutch once shot a traitor in camp. Because it's an optional thing, not everyone is going to be aware of it and Arthur never goes into specifics about who the person was or why he betrayed them. What if you play as that traitor but don't know that until towards the end? It would be a bit like A Fork in the Road where the game just springs it on you. You're just riding along heading towards say the penultimate mission and you divert and meet up with Colm O'Driscoll for example and it's revealed you have been an O'Driscoll spy the entire time, getting close to Dutch to set him and the gang up. But your character is conflicted because he's grown close to the gang and feels a part of it. So he reveals all to Dutch to save him and the gang in the final mission (the redemption part of the title) and just when you think everything is turning out well back at camp, Dutch pulls out a gun and shoots you.

 

Another thought is what if you play as one of the Callander brothers but it's prior to them joining the Van Der Linde gang. The game actually focuses on what leads Mac and Davey to meeting and joining up with Dutch and the others so the Van Der Linde gang are there but not central to the story.

 

Just some thoughts. Whatever they do, I'm sure I'll enjoy. Just pleeeaaasssseee let me play as Arthur in the epilogue. 

[Hmmm Beer]

I'm enjoying this thread, but I think I'm done with the Van Der Linde gang too, for many of the reasons stated by others above.

 

I too would like to see a wild west RD3. The options are many... 

[JB1982]

Question for people. Do people consider the franchise to be called Red Dead Redemption or is the franchise actually called Red Dead?

 

The reason I ask this is because we started with Red Dead Revolver back in the day and they followed that up with Red Dead Redemption which had a new storyline and no connection to Revolver (as far as I am aware) but then they decided to follow that up with Redemption 2 with a heavy tie into Redemption 1.

 

So are people actually expecting a Redemption 3 or a new title like Red Dead Rage, Revolution etc? And would it perhaps be better to call it a new name if it has no ties to the storyline of Redemptions 1 and 2? And only use Redemption again to continue the adventures of the Van Der Linde's?

[Hmmm Beer]

16 minutes ago, JB1982 said:

Question for people. Do people consider the franchise to be called Red Dead Redemption or is the franchise actually called Red Dead?

 

The reason I ask this is because we started with Red Dead Revolver back in the day and they followed that up with Red Dead Redemption which had a new storyline and no connection to Revolver (as far as I am aware) but then they decided to follow that up with Redemption 2 with a heavy tie into Redemption 1.

 

So are people actually expecting a Redemption 3 or a new title like Red Dead Rage, Revolution etc? And would it perhaps be better to call it a new name if it has no ties to the storyline of Redemptions 1 and 2? And only use Redemption again to continue the adventures of the Van Der Linde's?

That's a very good question. I think I would go for a Red Dead 'something' other than Redemption. 

[Lemoyne outlaw]

i think retribution, rebellion, revolution are all good names to go after red dead. as long as the protagonist and story are separate from the van der linde gang.