Red Dead 3/Red Dead Redemption 2 - IT'S HAPPENING.gif

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
It'd be cool to see something set in California + Oregon + Idaho, personally. Get a bit of that rocky mountain western flair along with the deserts. Or they could just make up states that have all of those features again.

And as long as we're dreaming I'd like to see a branching narrative this time.
If RDR3 can create a bit of a looser, more sandboxy story, I would love a branching narrative + morality system. I personally am not a big fan of the tightly scripted movie setpieces that each of the missions post GTA V have tended to be.
It would be cool to see RDR's world at the height of the old west rather than it's decline.

It'd also be cool to see American dry desert ala Arizona, Nevada etc, the one type of environment we never saw, we saw grassy desert in New Austin and dry desert in Mexico but never in the US.
RDR 3.jpg


There was a map from a couple years ago that I grabbed; I think a map expansion like this (though excluding the RDR2 parts) could work well.

You could get:
- A Pacific coastline, ranging from grasslands (So Cal.) to Redwood Forests (Northern California, PNW)
- A set of real mountain ranges (Sierra Nevadas, Rockies) that you could pass through (which don't exist just as map borders)
- An interior 'real' desert (Death Valley)
- Possibly a Mexican expansion, down into the subtropics (Valley of Mexico)
- A port city (RDR's version of San Francisco)
- A real Mexican colonial-styled city
- A gold rush town
- Old Californian missions
 
If RDR3 can create a bit of a looser, more sandboxy story, I would love a branching narrative + morality system. I personally am not a big fan of the tightly scripted movie setpieces that each of the missions post GTA V have tended to be.

View attachment 2670116

There was a map from a couple years ago that I grabbed; I think a map expansion like this (though excluding the RDR2 parts) could work well.

You could get:
- A Pacific coastline, ranging from grasslands (So Cal.) to Redwood Forests (Northern California, PNW)
- A set of real mountain ranges (Sierra Nevadas, Rockies) that you could pass through (which don't exist just as map borders)
- An interior 'real' desert (Death Valley)
- Possibly a Mexican expansion, down into the subtropics (Valley of Mexico)
- A port city (RDR's version of San Francisco)
- A real Mexican colonial-styled city
- A gold rush town
- Old Californian missions
That would be fantastic, I was definitely a bit disappointed in RDRII's choice of locations, I wanted more desert, mesas, all that good stuff, it's really weird that II featured none of that that was all new.

I firmly believe when rdr3 happens it needs to take place during prohibition and be about smuggling and bootlegging , you can keep rdrs themes and mechanics but also get some of that gta flair with car driving
That might be good for a RDR4, I feel like there's definitely room for one more cowboy game, set at the height of the old west, to round out the trilogy, then you could go in a way different direction with the 1930s.
 
That would be fantastic, I was definitely a bit disappointed in RDRII's choice of locations, I wanted more desert, mesas, all that good stuff, it's really weird that II featured none of that that was all new.


That might be good for a RDR4, I feel like there's definitely room for one more cowboy game, set at the height of the old west, to round out the trilogy, then you could go in a way different direction with the 1930s.
Yeah, RDRII felt rather 'anti-Western' in a way in how it ends up stranded in Lousiana and the Ozarks. The initial parts in the Heartland were wonderful though with the vast landscapes.

I would almost say that a 1930s RDR would be better off as a looser spin-off i.e. as Red Dead - Revenge, but then again, Rockstar hardly puts out new games to the point where that's necessary.
 
Yeah, RDRII felt rather 'anti-Western' in a way in how it ends up stranded in Lousiana and the Ozarks. The initial parts in the Heartland were wonderful though with the vast landscapes.
The Lousiana areas were cool, but the Ozarks I was a bit eh on, it felt like a desire to avoid the most stereotypical old west type locales but like, that's what you want to see, sometimes the cliché is cooler than the non-cliché.

I would almost say that a 1930s RDR would be better off as a looser spin-off i.e. as Red Dead - Revenge, but then again, Rockstar hardly puts out new games to the point where that's necessary.
Especially since when you think 1930s you think filling guy full of lead with tommy guns, not necessarily the precision aiming of the cowboy era that the "dead eye" meter captures.
 
If we're talking about what would be cool maps, I'd either like Mexico again (I was real disappointed they didn't include it in RDR2), or a Civil War/Reconstruction-era game along the Mississippi.

I imagine a map laid out tall and thin, with most of the content (maybe all of it) on the west bank, so you basically transition from Louisiana (Lemoyne) up to Minnesota with its bayous, up into normal subtropical forest, to the mountains, all the way up to snow-covered forested areas. And it could be laid out with two major cities, one representing Chicago and the other New Orleans. Extended to the west, some room for the Great Plains. Historically, this area was a hotbed of outlaws coming from a massive army being disbanded and sent home to face occupation.

I'd also like an RDR that focuses on Indians, like something set in the turbulent world of New Mexico Territory (Navajos, Apaches, Comanches, Mexicans, and Mormons in a desert environment, but it's not all desert, New Mexico has forests and honest-to-god snow), or out in the upper West, like the Black Hills and Yellowstone, with the plains nomads.

And it'd be great if somebody bothered to make a game set in the Old East or revolutionary/colonial days, like when "Northwest" and "Southwest" meant places like Indiana and Alabama. People think that a game like that would suck because of the guns, but that's why it would revolve around melee combat: you take your shot, then close in and start fighting with knives, bayonets, tomahawks, swords, war clubs, or fighting it out with bows and arrows. It'd be way cooler than cover-shooting with guns.

I loved RDR and RDR2, but I'm tired after two of them of the elegiac "the West is fading away" crap with Gatling guns and Mausers everywhere. The opening of the West is more interesting than its closing.
I firmly believe when rdr3 happens it needs to take place during prohibition and be about smuggling and bootlegging , you can keep rdrs themes and mechanics but also get some of that gta flair with car driving
I assume you've got something like Canada-to-Chicago or Cuba-to-America in mind, but the Appalachian moonshining was a huge source of liquor for the domestic market, it'd get produced in the mountains and then shipped into big cities. ("Lawless" is a good movie with that setting.) The setting is something that it's hard to imagine the public taking an interest in, but I thought RDR2 captured the Southern mountain feeling stunningly well with Roanoke Ridge, and it'd be interesting to me if somebody made a game with an environment like that in a Model-T and tommy gun era. It could have a large city representing Atlantic City, a mafia-and-moonshiners sort of deal. You could go from horses and hunting to jazz cabarets and casinos in the same game.
 
Especially since when you think 1930s you think filling guy full of lead with tommy guns, not necessarily the precision aiming of the cowboy era that the "dead eye" meter captures.
Just give it an appropriate name and have it be about dumping lead down range like it was Valentine's Day in Chicago. Red Dead Rage perhaps?
And it'd be great if somebody bothered to make a game set in the Old East or revolutionary/colonial days, like when "Northwest" and "Southwest" meant places like Indiana and Alabama. People think that a game like that would suck because of the guns, but that's why it would revolve around melee combat: you take your shot, then close in and start fighting with knives, bayonets, tomahawks, swords, war clubs, or fighting it out with bows and arrows. It'd be way cooler than cover-shooting with guns.
You just know they'd ruin it with a 10 second reload on a muzzle-loader, maybe 20 if we're using a Kentucky rifle.
I assume you've got something like Canada-to-Chicago or Cuba-to-America in mind, but the Appalachian moonshining was a huge source of liquor for the domestic market, it'd get produced in the mountains and then shipped into big cities. ("Lawless" is a good movie with that setting.) The setting is something that it's hard to imagine the public taking an interest in, but I thought RDR2 captured the Southern mountain feeling stunningly well with Roanoke Ridge, and it'd be interesting to me if somebody made a game with an environment like that in a Model-T and tommy gun era. It could have a large city representing Atlantic City, a mafia-and-moonshiners sort of deal. You could go from horses and hunting to jazz cabarets and casinos in the same game.
Only if we get to pimp our rides. After all, can't have moonshiners without the auto races and souped-up rides.
 
I assume you've got something like Canada-to-Chicago or Cuba-to-America in mind, but the Appalachian moonshining was a huge source of liquor for the domestic market, it'd get produced in the mountains and then shipped into big cities. ("Lawless" is a good movie with that setting.) The setting is something that it's hard to imagine the public taking an interest in, but I thought RDR2 captured the Southern mountain feeling stunningly well with Roanoke Ridge, and it'd be interesting to me if somebody made a game with an environment like that in a Model-T and tommy gun era. It could have a large city representing Atlantic City, a mafia-and-moonshiners sort of deal. You could go from horses and hunting to jazz cabarets and casinos in the same game.
I was thinking more around Appalachia , as for the public appeal thing , didnt the mafia remaster sell well? in my head a RDR3 would be in around that same era , maybe with a epilogue taking place during the 2nd world war maybe involving crimes more common in gangster era like bombings and bank robberies (at least my idea of gangster crimes)
 
And it'd be great if somebody bothered to make a game set in the Old East or revolutionary/colonial days, like when "Northwest" and "Southwest" meant places like Indiana and Alabama. People think that a game like that would suck because of the guns, but that's why it would revolve around melee combat: you take your shot, then close in and start fighting with knives, bayonets, tomahawks, swords, war clubs, or fighting it out with bows and arrows. It'd be way cooler than cover-shooting with guns.
Assassin's Creed 3 was great for that.

If RDR3 can create a bit of a looser, more sandboxy story, I would love a branching narrative + morality system. I personally am not a big fan of the tightly scripted movie setpieces that each of the missions post GTA V have tended to be.
Yeah, I get that they want to be film makers and be "cinematique" but I'm tired of it. These games are about freedom and the fact you're completely shackled to a narrative with no actual agency beyond minor honor differences is fucking stupid.

In an ideal RDR2 you'd have had the option to split from the gang when given the chance, maybe follow Mary-Beth out.
 
In an ideal RDR2 you'd have had the option to split from the gang when given the chance, maybe follow Mary-Beth out.
"A little more money, that's all..." pleaded the man with $4,500 in cash in his satchel, plus various unsold valuables.
 
Yeah, I get that they want to be film makers and be "cinematique" but I'm tired of it. These games are about freedom and the fact you're completely shackled to a narrative with no actual agency beyond minor honor differences is fucking stupid.

In an ideal RDR2 you'd have had the option to split from the gang when given the chance, maybe follow Mary-Beth out.
Yeah, it's one thing to have narrative dissonance, but with RDR2 the narrative and gameplay are practically OPPOSING each other.
This is why the first game is still the better one imo.

In RDR1, you're forced to do dumb things because your family is being held hostage, and because John is basically the only one in the game with a braincell. Despite stupid things happening, the game still feels grounded in reality, because nothing too out there really happens.

In RDR2, you're forced to do dumb things because Rockstar railroads you to hell and back over the most minute detail because the first game still has to happen, and because they wanted to make a movie and not a game.

The game's narrative is so scared of causing the Butterfly Effect that it won't even let you give a special pen to Mary-Beth, but in the overworld the game just doesn't give a fuck, and let's ghosts, aliens, giants, and sentient robots run wild.
 
Last edited:
This is why the first game is still the better one imo.

In RDR1, you're forced to do dumb things because your family is being held hostage, and because John is basically the only one in the in the game with a braincell. Despite stupid things happening, the game still feels grounded in reality, because nothing too out there really happens.

In RDR2, you're forced to do dumb things because Rockstar railroads you to hell and back over the most minute detail because the first game still has to happen, and because they wanted to make a movie and not a game.

The game's narrative is so scared of causing the Butterfly Effect that it won't even let you give a special pen to Mary-Beth, but in the overworld the game just doesn't give a fuck, and let's ghosts, aliens, giants, and sentient robot run wild.
Adding Arthur changed things so dramatically that I like to pretend RDR2 leads to an alternate continuity.

That said I know I'm deluding myself and Rockstar just didn't think it through.
 
It’s still disturbing to me how outraged Dutch was that I rescued the Native American.

Like, was Dutch a racist to the natives?
No, he was just mad because saving Eagle Flies fucked with his plan, and got the Pinkertons back on their asses.

He's not racist, and he actually yells at Bill at one point for being racist specifically towards Natives. The only way I could see him actually being racist is if you take him using the Natives' blight, and constant discrimination for his own good, and shit as being such.
 
No, he was just mad because saving Eagle Flies fucked with his plan, and got the Pinkertons back on their asses.

He's not racist, and he actually yells at Bill at one point for being racist specifically towards Natives. The only way I could see him actually being racist is if you take him using the Natives' blight, and constant discrimination for his own good, and shit as being such.
Which he does in the first redemption.

Besides that Bill actually was at the frontline seeing that shit first hand. All Dutch did was read and act like he was better than Bill. He didn't see shit. Maybe Bill didn't see shit and was just processing the trauma of war, but Dutch only read books likely written by assholes that were never there.

I may be giving that scene in the bayou too much credit, but I like to look at it as mocking the kinds of people who ridicule those that were there simply because they read differently. I probably am giving too much credit because of how they handled the slave catcher.
 
No, he was just mad because saving Eagle Flies fucked with his plan, and got the Pinkertons back on their asses.

What plan? Tahiti?

And there was no escape from the Pinkertons or any law enforcement. I learned that really early on and it’s why I stopped caring about the Honour system.
 
Back
Top Bottom