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

[The Gene Genie]

Man I'd love that, just Imagine a game like Fallout New Vegas but made with the RDR2 rage engine. That would genuinely be the best game ever made. As it stands now RDR2 is a technically impressive but often very tedious game with a story and main character I don't really like at all. The retconning along with the overall narrative being about erasure and replacement also gives me Ryan Johnson vibes.

I never played RDR1 to be honest, so maybe this is why, but honestly I really liked the story of RDR2 and Arthur Morgan. It was genuinely amazing.

 

[Ser Prize]

I never played RDR1 to be honest, so maybe this is why, but honestly I really liked the story of RDR2 and Arthur Morgan. It was genuinely amazing.

Maybe it's because I'm a big Western fan but I found RDR2's story to be very generic and cliche. I knew more or less where it was going the second I heard it was a prequel and the only curve ball was the TB.

I'd love New Vegas but with RDR2 combat mechanics instead of what is basically CoD. I'd love to gunfight the Legion and have them start yelling out combat taunts.

Oh, and we've talked about a potential RDR3 in the Roaring Twenties, and finally one of the modders went and did it. Sort of.
https://www.nexusmods.com/reddeadredemption2/mods/3069

I say go the other direction. Have a game set in the early/mid 1800's instead of in the 20's. We've done "the death of the west" twice now, let's do the birth.

That said cockstar will never do it because you have to actually portray human vs native american conflict, and they are far too pozzed to do that nowadays.

 

[The Gene Genie]

Maybe it's because I'm a big Western fan but I found RDR2's story to be very generic and cliche. I knew more or less where it was going the second I heard it was a prequel and the only curve ball was the TB

I guess for the same reasons why you didn’t care for it, I liked it. Sometimes I feel like people try to reinvent the wheel when it don’t need to be. I like a cliche Western and I’ve seen a billion of the films from way back when where the plot is basically the same just different actors but I love them all.

I knew where the story was going too, not just because I’d been conscious and aware of Red Dead Redemption since my friend was the one who told me to get 2 since it was on PC but for the reasons above as well, but I didn’t mind much. The characters are well voiced and written IMO. And I think the game is pretty fun even if you strip the story away.

As for a third game, I concur with the sentiment about doing it in the birth of the West. I think you’d have to tie it in somehow to the other two, or else I think they should just make that one its own thing. I suppose in my mind I’d have it set with Arthur’s father and end with him getting shot to ribbons like how it’s alluded to in 2, and the epilogue (since both 1 and 2 have this) is a young Arthur and the start of the Van Der Linde Gang. I think setting it with the early days of the Van Der Linde Gang wouldn’t work thematically. The story’s are about redemption and all that (it’s in the name) and i don’t know what kind of redemption outlaws at the height of their career are going to get. Besides I don’t want to see the Blackwater Massacre. The event works best as a “tell, don’t show” in my opinion. Everyone seems to remember it differently or at least it was so chaotic no one really knows what happened. If you show what “really” happened it removes the mystique.

 

[Sinner's Sandwich]

Oh god please no more Arthur shit

 

[The Gene Genie]

Oh god please no more Arthur shit

I personally like the character but I respect your opinion not to.

 

[TVB]

Oh god please no more Arthur shit

He's a fine character to explore, but not as good as many other characters like Dutch

 

[The Gene Genie]

He's a fine character to explore, but not as good as many other characters like Dutch

I don’t think a Dutch-centric game would work at all, to be honest. I think the next game should only be tangibly related to the Van Der Linde Gang. I don’t think anything more needs to be said about most of them. Not anything that would make for a good story to be honest.

Maybe those two brothers that bite it at Blackwater, but even then I’d prefer something set in the height of the Old West like in the 1860s-1870s, not in the tail end.

 

[Ser Prize]

I guess for the same reasons why you didn’t care for it, I liked it. Sometimes I feel like people try to reinvent the wheel when it don’t need to be. I like a cliche Western and I’ve seen a billion of the films from way back when where the plot is basically the same just different actors but I love them all.

I knew where the story was going too, not just because I’d been conscious and aware of Red Dead Redemption since my friend was the one who told me to get 2 since it was on PC but for the reasons above as well, but I didn’t mind much. The characters are well voiced and written IMO. And I think the game is pretty fun even if you strip the story away.

As for a third game, I concur with the sentiment about doing it in the birth of the West. I think you’d have to tie it in somehow to the other two, or else I think they should just make that one its own thing. I suppose in my mind I’d have it set with Arthur’s father and end with him getting shot to ribbons like how it’s alluded to in 2, and the epilogue (since both 1 and 2 have this) is a young Arthur and the start of the Van Der Linde Gang. I think setting it with the early days of the Van Der Linde Gang wouldn’t work thematically. The story’s are about redemption and all that (it’s in the name) and i don’t know what kind of redemption outlaws at the height of their career are going to get. Besides I don’t want to see the Blackwater Massacre. The event works best as a “tell, don’t show” in my opinion. Everyone seems to remember it differently or at least it was so chaotic no one really knows what happened. If you show what “really” happened it removes the mystique.

I'm not one for extremely bleak stories, and having played RDR1 well before RDR2 was even announced I knew exactly how it all ended. So all of Arthur's trials and tribulations never mattered to me despite the VA killing it, because I knew the point the game was building up to and where that point actually went.

RDR2 is also absolutely schizo about it's take on morality so it's really hard to get a bead on what Arthur considers 'redemption' when the man, even putting aside the shit the players can initiate, is a mass murdering son of a bitch. Yes he said he was scared of dying and where he was going, and I liked that moment, but that really didn't sell me on his regret.

As for a third game I'd prefer a new cast of characters entirely. Maybe have a cameo where you run into Dutch's earlier gang, but otherwise keep it fresh.

 

[xXx: State of the Union]

RDR2 is also absolutely schizo about it's take on morality so it's really hard to get a bead on what Arthur considers 'redemption' when the man, even putting aside the shit the players can initiate, is a mass murdering son of a bitch. Yes he said he was scared of dying and where he was going, and I liked that moment, but that really didn't sell me on his regret.

I never actually got the feeling that Arthur was looking for or expected to be viewed as redeemed even with high honor.

But I assume that has everything to do with them keeping the unnecessary honor system which allows you to play an Arthur who absolutely does not give a shit about anything, so they can't have any major story beats where he mentions it outright.

 

[Snekposter]

I don’t think a Dutch-centric game would work at all, to be honest. I think the next game should only be tangibly related to the Van Der Linde Gang. I don’t think anything more needs to be said about most of them. Not anything that would make for a good story to be honest.

Maybe those two brothers that bite it at Blackwater, but even then I’d prefer something set in the height of the Old West like in the 1860s-1870s, not in the tail end.

My personal preference would be for Hosea. We've done two games as thick-skulled enforcers. Might as well give us one starring the brains of the operation. Keep in mind Hosea grew up poor as shit in the mountains eating bear, so a younger one would be plenty tough, and it would have lots of opportunities for hijinks involving disguises and con schemes.

I never actually got the feeling that Arthur was looking for or expected to be viewed as redeemed even with high honor.

But I assume that has everything to do with them keeping the unnecessary honor system which allows you to play an Arthur who absolutely does not give a shit about anything, so they can't have any major story beats where he mentions it outright.

The whole point of Arthur is that he knows its too late for him. He's not fighting for his redemption by the end, but John's. Its why when you stay behind to cover John's escape he boasts to Dutch with his few last breaths that John's the only one who made it out. He wasn't talking about the Pinkertons since obviously Dutch and Micah managed to successfully flee them but instead the criminal life they all led.

 

[Ser Prize]

My personal preference would be for Hosea. We've done two games as thick-skulled enforcers. Might as well give us one starring the brains of the operation. Keep in mind Hosea grew up poor as shit in the mountains eating bear, so a younger one would be plenty tough, and it would have lots of opportunities for hijinks involving disguises and con schemes.

The whole point of Arthur is that he knows its too late for him. He's not fighting for his redemption by the end, but John's. Its why when you stay behind to cover John's escape he boasts to Dutch with his few last breaths that John's the only one who made it out. He wasn't talking about the Pinkertons since obviously Dutch and Micah managed to successfully flee them but instead the criminal life they all led.

Yeah but it was all pointless if you played RDR1. People who played RDR2 first probably didn't have that problem, but to me it made me not really care.

 

[Bunny Tracks]

For the love of fuck, get Arthur's, and the rest of Van der Linde gang's balls out of your mouths.

If we have to go back again, I want it to be with someone completely unaffiliated with the gang. If it has to be someone we know, let it be someone like Landon Ricketts, Black Belle, or hell, Rains Fall.

Oh god please no more Arthur shit

Arthur, and his fanboys have been a disaster for the Red Dead Redemption series.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

fuck Dutch and I refuse to buy anything where you have to play as him.

RDR3 needs to be a Landon Ricketts game set in the Golden Age of the West. Like, 1870s, depending on how old he’s supposed to be.

One thing I did really like about RDR2 was it leaning into this trend of what I and Tarantino call “Southerns” and then further mixing that with its proto-mafia Gilded Age thing, but I’m tired of elegiac Westerns and even Southerns (or at least Louisiana ones) are starting to wear thin.

 

[Ser Prize]

I am once again repeating: the ending of RDR2 doesn't work if you played RDR1.

It tries to be this bittersweet moment about how Arthur died but at least John got out then you remember what the fuck happens to the Marstons.

Just a bleak, depressing story from start to finish.

 

[The Evil Midnight Bomber]

I'm not one for extremely bleak stories, and having played RDR1 well before RDR2 was even announced I knew exactly how it all ended. So all of Arthur's trials and tribulations never mattered to me despite the VA killing it, because I knew the point the game was building up to and where that point actually went.

RDR2 is also absolutely schizo about it's take on morality so it's really hard to get a bead on what Arthur considers 'redemption' when the man, even putting aside the shit the players can initiate, is a mass murdering son of a bitch. Yes he said he was scared of dying and where he was going, and I liked that moment, but that really didn't sell me on his regret.

As for a third game I'd prefer a new cast of characters entirely. Maybe have a cameo where you run into Dutch's earlier gang, but otherwise keep it fresh.

The worst part about how schizo Arthur acts is his GTA protagonist personality. He is the driving force behind all of the bad shit happening in the story (because without him nothing would ever get done) but he always acts like he's above it all. A personality like that fit earlier Rockstar protagonists because they were often being jerked around by people that had some kind of leverage over them. But Arthur just lets everyone else make retarded mistakes while bitching and moaning about it constantly even though he has the ability to change things.

 

[Yamamura]

I'd love New Vegas but with RDR2 combat mechanics instead of what is basically CoD. I'd love to gunfight the Legion and have them start yelling out combat taunts.

I still play New Vegas like it's Red Dead all the time. Using lever action rifles, revolvers and poisoned tomahawks. I fire Lucky from the hip with the fast firerate perk and pretend I'm fanning the hammer.

 

[xXx: State of the Union]

Just a bleak, depressing story from start to finish.

I mean...that was Red Dead Redemption too.

John sacrifices his life for Jack, Jack goes and becomes a wanted criminal by murdering a (retired) agent.

I'd almost say it was a theme but I don't want to give Dan Houser that much credit.

 

[Bunny Tracks]

The worst part about how schizo Arthur acts is his GTA protagonist personality. He is the driving force behind all of the bad shit happening in the story (because without him nothing would ever get done) but he always acts like he's above it all. A personality like that fit earlier Rockstar protagonists because they were often being jerked around by people that had some kind of leverage over them. But Arthur just lets everyone else make retarded mistakes while bitching and moaning about it constantly even though he has the ability to change things.

To be absolutely fair to Arthur, his fatal flaws are his loyalty, and his denial-ridden belief that things will get better for the gang if he just keeps following orders even though the writing is clearly on the wall.

Deep down, he knew things were wrong, and weren't going to get better, but he didn't know what else to do to try, and fix it, so he just kept listening to Dutch until it was too late.

 

[The Evil Midnight Bomber]

To be absolutely fair to Arthur, his fatal flaws are his loyalty, and his denial-ridden belief that things will get better for the gang if he just keeps following orders even though the writing is clearly on the wall.

Deep down, he knew things were wrong, and weren't going to get better, but he didn't know what else to do to try, and fix it, so he just kept listening to Dutch until it was too late.

There is one glaring issue with Arthur not knowing what to do. After the Valentine Bank heist they should have easily had enough money to just get the whole gang a ticket for a trans atlantic ocean liner with a shitton to spare.

 

[Bunny Tracks]

There is one glaring issue with Arthur not knowing what to do. After the Valentine Bank heist they should have easily had enough money to just get the whole gang a ticket for a trans atlantic ocean liner with a shitton to spare.

Sorry, I should have clarified.

Arthur might know what the gang should do, but he doesn't know how they should do it. He knows the gang should go somewhere, but he doesn't know how to organize such a thing. Dutch, and Hosea were in charge of that stuff, and once shit hit the fan, well, we all know what happened.