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
If they're going to abandoned RDO, the least they can do is dump all the horses, outfits, legendary animals, etc. into the single-player mode. I don't even care if they make it a DLC.

It's just a waste to throw all that shit away.
 
Ser Prize said:
If Cockstar was smart they'd release unrelated story DLCs set in RDR2's world/engine. With whole new characters and stuff.
Click to expand...
Ending of RDR2 was sorta set up for that, since they could have done separate DLC based on Sadie Adler, Charles Smith, and Dutch Van Der Linde and their post-RDR2 adventures.

Or they could have also done the GTA IV-style parallel-plot DLC and done something revolving around the O'Driscoll gang.

IMO if Rockstar survives long enough to make RDR3, they should step back from the whole super-cinematic narrative style they have going on, and let the character be more of a lone drifter persona whose character/morality would be more strongly influenced by the player rather than being tied to the narrative.
 
jje100010001 said:
Ending of RDR2 was sorta set up for that, since they could have done separate DLC based on Sadie Adler, Charles Smith, and Dutch Van Der Linde and their post-RDR2 adventures.

Or they could have also done the GTA IV-style parallel-plot DLC and done something revolving around the O'Driscoll gang.

IMO if Rockstar survives long enough to make RDR3, they should step back from the whole super-cinematic narrative style they have going on, and let the character be more of a lone drifter persona whose character/morality would be more strongly influenced by the player rather than being tied to the narrative.
Click to expand...
I would have prefer whole new characters, with maybe some cameos. I'm sick of hearing about the gang, there are other types of western stories to tell.

And yeah, no more of this wanna-be movie stuff. Games have the unique quality of being interactive. What pains me about RDR2 was for all the sandboxy choice fun the story is completely linear. You can't really choose how to do a mission or who to save. Like if RDR2 was a better game you could have snuck Micah out of that town or just abandoned him, making Dutch pissed at you, etc.
 
Ser Prize said:
I would have prefer whole new characters, with maybe some cameos. I'm sick of hearing about the gang, there are other types of western stories to tell.

And yeah, no more of this wanna-be movie stuff. Games have the unique quality of being interactive. What pains me about RDR2 was for all the sandboxy choice fun the story is completely linear. You can't really choose how to do a mission or who to save. Like if RDR2 was a better game you could have snuck Micah out of that town or just abandoned him, making Dutch pissed at you, etc.
Click to expand...
Agreed, that's the route they should take in RDR3- have it set in the start-to-height of the Old West, and make it a narrative/gameplay sandbox with various plotlines/goals and endings depending on your morality and actions (i.e. the spaghetti western good guys/bad guys).

Stop having all the missions be on-rails setpieces, and instead create more open-ended missions that give players the ability to accomplish goals in a unstructured manner. The story is left untethered to RDR1/2, and your character becomes part of the legends of the Old West regardless of their actions.

RDR2 is completely railroaded, you can even fail missions by doing the wrong thing, or going the wrong way. I agree that they missed out on multiple ways to accomplish missions, and even discover endings, there should have been options to allow Arthur to leave the gang, or survive (i.e. escape to New Austin) if he made certain choices.
 
jje100010001 said:
Agreed, that's the route they should take in RDR3- have it set in the start-to-height of the Old West, and make it a narrative/gameplay sandbox with various plotlines/goals and endings depending on your morality and actions (i.e. the spaghetti western good guys/bad guys).

Stop having all the missions be on-rails setpieces, and instead create more open-ended missions that give players the ability to accomplish goals in a unstructured manner. The story is left untethered to RDR1/2, and your character becomes part of the legends of the Old West regardless of their actions.

RDR2 is completely railroaded, you can even fail missions by doing the wrong thing, or going the wrong way. I agree that they missed out on multiple ways to accomplish missions, and even discover endings, there should have been options to allow Arthur to leave the gang, or survive (i.e. escape to New Austin) if he made certain choices.
Click to expand...
One big issue with that is gunpowder. It wasn't until 1884 that smokeless powder was invented (and longer before it made its way all the way to the West from France), so they can either have the clouds of massive smoke black powder left after firing, with all of the inherent gameplay issues, or get dinged for a total lack of realism.
 
So apparently Rockstar accidently liked a #SaveRedDeadOnline tweet before unliking it an hour later.

TheProfessional made a whole video about it if anyone really wants to hear him talk about it for 7 minutes.
 
Snekposter said:
One big issue with that is gunpowder. It wasn't until 1884 that smokeless powder was invented (and longer before it made its way all the way to the West from France), so they can either have the clouds of massive smoke black powder left after firing, with all of the inherent gameplay issues, or get dinged for a total lack of realism.
Click to expand...
I mean personally I hope they make the next game a sequal. Not enough films or westerns talk about the Edwardian western period and the early 20s. It wasn't until 1925/1926 that we started to see paved roads outside of major cities. I mean they could do a ballad of jack Marston going from all the major western towns across the US.
 
jje100010001 said:
Agreed, that's the route they should take in RDR3- have it set in the start-to-height of the Old West, and make it a narrative/gameplay sandbox with various plotlines/goals and endings depending on your morality and actions (i.e. the spaghetti western good guys/bad guys).

Stop having all the missions be on-rails setpieces, and instead create more open-ended missions that give players the ability to accomplish goals in a unstructured manner. The story is left untethered to RDR1/2, and your character becomes part of the legends of the Old West regardless of their actions.
Click to expand...
That's too ambitious and interesting for Rockstar.
 
They literally should just retcon the online being a prequel and set it in between RD2 and 1. Setting it before 2 and then just trying to skirt around the fact that the best part of the game are missing almost entirely is just dumb story design. RIP to the online, I still play from time to time before bed because its genuinely comfy riding around on your own character. Rockstar could have easily made the online into something grander, but instead gave more fucks to give to the Michael Bay tier GTAO
 
I don't want any more prequels, at least none with any of the actual gang members. I want a fresh start.
 
I just want to find a god damn 3 star bull moose.
Played this game since it came out, and ONCE I've seen one of them fuckers
 
Monkey Shoulder said:
I just want to find a god damn 3 star bull moose.
Played this game since it came out, and ONCE I've seen one of them fuckers
Click to expand...
They tend to spawn reliably for me up near Tall Trees near the lake where the little fishing cabin is. Have also seen one in Roanoke that spawned where the legendary moose spawns in single player.
 
Sithis said:
They tend to spawn reliably for me up near Tall Trees near the lake where the little fishing cabin is. Have also seen one in Roanoke that spawned where the legendary moose spawns in single player.
Click to expand...
Tall Trees isn't an option right now, but I know where they are supposed to spawn.
Has to be something fucky with the spawn rate, I mean, I've seen more mooses in real life THIS YEAR alone than I've ever done in RDR.
 
LeChampion1992 said:
I mean personally I hope they make the next game a sequal. Not enough films or westerns talk about the Edwardian western period and the early 20s. It wasn't until 1925/1926 that we started to see paved roads outside of major cities. I mean they could do a ballad of jack Marston going from all the major western towns across the US.
Click to expand...
Roaring Twenties red dead would have the potential to be so fucking good. Robbing banks and trains, you could have a popularity system that would affect whether or not the public aids/doesn't report you to the cops. The G-Men are trying to track you down and tapping your phone. So much potential.
 
Monkey Shoulder said:
I just want to find a god damn 3 star bull moose.
Played this game since it came out, and ONCE I've seen one of them fuckers
Click to expand...
Try on a small cliff northeast of Colter. It might not always be 3 stars, or spawn, but it's usually there.
 
Last edited:
Aldeland said:
Roaring Twenties red dead would have the potential to be so fucking good. Robbing banks and trains, you could have a popularity system that would affect whether or not the public aids/doesn't report you to the cops. The G-Men are trying to track you down and tapping your phone. So much potential.
Click to expand...
Could easily set it in Mexico during the mid/late 1920s during the Cristero War between the Government of Mexico vs. the Catholic Rebels. Both sides used weapons from circa 1860. It was as wild as the west was.
 
MuhCree said:
Could easily set it in Mexico during the mid/late 1920s during the Cristero War between the Government of Mexico vs. the Catholic Rebels. Both sides used weapons from circa 1860. It was as wild as the west was.
Click to expand...
Late 1800s -1930s is such a ripe setting for cool set pieces and interesting events. Pretty underrated IMO
 
It's been almost four years since the game came out, Rockstar's never going to bother updating RDR2 for the current gen consoles.

What, would an updated port of RDR2 be too much effort for them compared to coasting on GTA V for the third generation in a row?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom