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 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 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 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 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.