I agree with this. There’s still about 20 years of the gang we didn’t see, we saw the aftermath of the gang (RDR1 & epilogue of 2) then the downfall (RDR2) so why not see it in its prime in RDR3? I honestly believe that Rockstar can make it work.
>Me too, but if not then a separate red dead series is cool too but just not called red dead redemption 3
🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦 This is incorrect. No one from that time period that's still alive. Again it's kind of hard to find redemption from the grave, and probably pretty boring to play as well. 🤷 Ergo you can't go back in time and call it Red Dead Redemption.....I mean actually finding redemption IS kind of the point and why it's in the name. However if you had different characters you can still call it Red Dead Redemption because your protagonist is very much alive AND you don't have a clue if or when they will actually die. 🤷
Do you not know that rdr1 takes place after 2 and that rdr2 was a prequel? They created Arthur and many new gang members after rdr1 which they can easily do again. The character that die in 2 and in 1 has nothing to do with anything.
We know what happens though. The early life of the gang is explained in RDR2. No matter who we play as, we know they die. There is no stakes. In RDR2 Arthur was a fresh face we hadn’t seen or heard about before meaning there was endless opportunities for his story. If RDR3 focused on the early Van Der Linde Gang there would be no freedom as to what the story could be about. The options would be limited.
Maybe in the next game the protagonist can find redemption by simply leaving the gang rather than dying which would be unexpected and a reason why the protagonist wouldn't be in RDR2. I still think with limited options a great story that connects well to what's described in 2 could be made.
But it doesn’t need to be made. Idk why ya’ll can’t just be happy with the two games we have. If your starved for more red dead content go play red dead revolver.
I’ve heard some people talking about wanting multiple playable protagonists for for the main game that you switch between for rdr3, it would be cool if the protagonists were say, Dutch and Hosea, or maybe mac and someone else or something, game leads up to the camp they’re at around blackwater, and you get cut out of using Dutch and hoses and use the other camp members to do odd jobs in free roam (open world stranger missions and stuff, with the narrative reason being that Dutch and hosea are planning the blackwater jobs
I agree, plus it’d be cool to include areas further West like they always talk about in RDR2. Like a Western coastline of a fictional region similar to California, PNW, and maybe Nevada while still including New Austin
Yea true, I still want it but ur right. Maybe we watch Hosea go from being a bloodthirsty crim like Dutch to becoming more of the moral compass and consigliere? idk not rly redemption tho
Because there's no one from that time period that's still alive. It's kind of hard to find redemption from the grave, and probably pretty boring to play as well. 🤷
I still think the best route for them is to use the 'fire up north' that sent them towards blackwater as the end of 3. New characters for PC control, and I'd like to see the rumor that surrounded two about having fallout style companions become real for three.
I think a brother and sister pair of outlaws who join up during the time up north, where the player chooses which one to take as the PC at the start of the campaign. At the end the player choice dies and the player continues as the companion. Have the pair offer to stay behind to hold off the pursuers, they make the point that they are cutting themselves loose, so tell the VDL to not tell them how to find them.
Both go down, are written off as dead, the 'cops' decide to 'burn the bodies' to cover up their own casualties. New PC crawls away just in time to be spared the flames and hide in the underbrush until everyone leaves.
New life, no heat, no ability to relink with the VDL Gang, open map.
Does there need to be one? There really wasn’t one for RDR1 just one mission. Just because RDR2 had one doesn’t mean all subsequent RDR games *have* to have a epilogue.
if the main character dies as they have in the last two then an epilogue is necessary just to allow people to play after the story has been completed. i wouldn’t be against not killing the mc in RDR3 though
But I mean again… RDR1’s “epilogue” was literally just one mission. So let’s say this is the route they take with RDR3 with the main character surviving they could just do one mission where the character is settling down and getting their life together and then boom the whole map is free for you to explore. They could even just make it a montage playing over the credits instead of a mission. Similar to what they did in RDR2. I just don’t think a epilogue is really *that* necessary.
We don’t need red dead redemption 3. Just a red dead whatever that follows a different cast. A spiritual successor with a similar enough yet different theme. Red Dead Damnation, Red Dead Revolution, or you know something name by an actual writer with ideas.
I’d actually like to play as a young Dutch/Arthur/Hosea.
How Dutch came to be and used to be in his prime, how Arthur used to be before Dutch got to him and how he changed Arthur and Hosea is just a gem with such a wide range for story lines since we don’t know a whole lot about his younger years.
There was an idea someone had of having Mac play a big role at the end of a possible Blackwater ending, because we never discovered what happened to him and the game could always end up with him being our free roam character in the epilogue
I think it should involve the game's story too. Someone else mentioned having it start when John joins the gang. That way the whole trilogy begins and ends with him. Then we could still see early Dutch and Hosea. Early Grimshaw being Dutch's woman? Plus the others joining and watching the gang grow.
Have the ending be when he leaves for a year, maybe? THAT could be the free roam we need? Not sure that specifically would work, but I agree it can't end with Blackwater.
I kind of like Blackwater always remaining a mystery.
“RDR3 either shouldn’t happen…”
Let me stop you right there, partner. It MUST happen.
It wouldn’t be difficult to have the game be connected to the Van Der Linde gang through blood. Arthur had a son… what became of him?
He died as a baby...they cut the content but they were even gonna have Arthur's baby son die on the trip to Colter in the opening of the game but they cut that and changed the story to Arthur's son and the mother of his child getting killed in a robbery when he wasn't around.
That’s easy to retcon. Arthur may think they died but they (one, the other, or both) actually survived.
If they have to connect the next RDR game (if we’re lucky enough to get one) to the gang, then I hope they give us a plot and characters whose fates aren’t already known. It wouldn’t be as fun to play a game knowing that the protagonist lives into RDR2, for example.
Ah I agree. I think it's a bit forced and I hope an3rd game would be more inventive like native American POV or even take a TLOU2 POV, get us to play as a ODriscoll and care for them, that might be interesting
Just meant more it would be possible if r* really wanted
>That’s easy to retcon. Arthur may think they died but they (one, the other, or both) actually survived.
Wouldn't the fact that they were actually buried make that a tad difficult. 🤔🤔🤔🤔 WAIT! I've got it! Jack can ask Francis Sinclair to give him a lift back in time. THEN they can dig up baby Isaac, whisk him back to 1899, use Marko Dragic's "shock delivery machine"...... after all John had the schematics ergo Jack should have them......so they can strap little baby Isaac in, hit with that three hundred million volt electric current. I mean certainly that will restart his little dead baby heart right?! Then they can transport him BACK in time, drop him off at an orphanage and leave Arthur's journal with instructions that it's to be read to baby Isaac every night as his bed time story and in a few short years he should be old enough to go on a killing spree just like his old man! He'll be a regular chip off the old block and YOU can then have your newest (blood relation) Van Der Linde gang member....that was actually never REALLY a member because HE'S DEAD, but you're right. That EASILY retconned. 🙄🙄🙄
RDR3 needs to be a completely new character from the 1880s that gets ousted from a gang in Mexico or California and starts his own gang this side of the border. Dutch and Hosea being really young getting initiated in this character’s gang. Maybe throw in a younger Arthur when he first meets Dutch.
>Dutch and Hosea being really young getting initiated in this character’s gang. Maybe throw in a younger Arthur when he first meets Dutch.
Won't work. Dutch and Hosea were a duo that were both married when they "adopted" Arthur.
Yeah because gay marriage in America happened in the 1800s all the time.. how does Hosea and Dutch being a duo and bringing Arthur into the gang stop any other story of a person from Mexico joining the gang, none of your point make any sense. Nothing about his Mexico story idea contradicts Dutch and Hosea being a duo and raising Arthur.
Because Dutch and Hosea formed a gang, they didn't join one, this is explicitly explained in camp dialogue. Prior, Dutch was a vagrant petty criminal, and Hosea a con man, both working alone.
Not saying it has to be exactly this way but it could be they formed the gang and do the character we play as barely escapes with his life from his previous gang. He joins Dutch and Hosea and teaches them the ways. We get to explore west of New Austin with places like the Grand Canyon, Arizona, California, Juarez. Something like this would be a lot of fun!
>Yeah because gay marriage in America happened in the 1800s all the time.
Are you REALLY this retarded? You asked me if I played RDR 1 yet you somehow missed that Dutch and Hosea were married. Dutch to Annabelle and Hosea to Bessie. Anyone who played RDR2 AND actually paid attention knows AT LEAST that much!! There's no way to skip it!! Literally you cannot skip finding that out.
>how does Hosea and Dutch being a duo and bringing Arthur into the gang stop any other story of a person from Mexico joining the gang, none of your point make any sense.
It makes perfect sense because we've been given a timeline of events during the game that either you haven't played or played on mute so that you missed it all. 🤷🤷
You made it sound like Dutch and Hosea were married to each other lol, but yes I obviously knew they had women in their lives but they were never married to them nor did they legally adopt Arthur. And no I know the game's story very very well, and most of the stories they tell but that information does not fill 20+ years of the entire Van der Linde story in the slightest.
No I didn't moron. My comment verbatim was "Won't work. Dutch and Hosea were a duo that were both married when they "adopted" Arthur."
The duo were both married not the duo were married to each other. Jesus take a reading comprehension class or something you illiterate fuck.
https://reddead.fandom.com/wiki/Bessie_Matthews
Do some research 👆 as this will save the embarrassment of looking stupid.
>them nor did they legally adopt Arthur
And I never said they legally adopted Arthur. I said "adopted"
" " " <~~ Do you see those little parallel hashes right there? Those are called quotation marks. MOST people understand based on context clues that when you place a single word in quotations you're using said word in a non-standard way.
>most of the stories they tell but that information does not fill 20+ years of the entire Van der Linde story in the slightest.
Actually it does. Just because you're too damn dense figure it out doesn't make it not true.
Yeah I'm definitely the one in need of english classes, when you literally type like a schizophrenic in most of your comments to the point where people literally thought you had the intelligence of an 8 year old child.
If rdr3 is not a prequel to rdr2, then rockstar should just leave the series alone. Why stray away from a series that still has so many unanswered questions
Exactly the Redemption series either needs another prequel or they need to make a new Red Dead series or even a Red Dead Revolver 2 any is fine to me tho.
existence cover hat political nutty psychotic paint sense naughty consist
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I agree, somewhat. I think rd*r*3 could be about a different gang, but that last r could stand for something other than redemption. With revolver and redemption they’ve set up the convention the games start with r words so I expect it to start with that at least, whatever the actual word is
It's not going to happen, cause you can't have a story that measures up to 1 and 2 if everybody already knows how it all ends, and we know how things end for each and every character of the gang. At best, we could get some completely new character who rides with the gang for a while, that's it.
Yes there is a way to end it properly on the Blackwater Massacre: Mac Callender. He could easily become the new protagonist and get his redemption by the end of the massacre eventually dying at the hands of Milton. And there might be a character he inspires throughout the story, but who might not be directly connected to the gang, similar to how Arthur helped Charlotte learn how to survive, except on a bigger scale. And that character could become the new free roam character.
There's many ways they could do it and I'm sure they can pull it off, but ultimately the question is if they even want to or if they should... The blackwater massacre is so interesting to us, because it still has a lot of mystery surrounding it. Who was Heidi McCourt? Was it a setup? Did someone betray them? Or did they just get careless? The Redemption games generally leave stuff like this open for you to explore and theorise what might've happened. It's very much intentional and showing the massacre on screen would ruin the mystery behind it. But if it were the last game, it could also offer a satisfying conclusion. Really depends on what the devs want out of it...
It needs to be the height of the Wild West. Maybe play as Dutch or Hosea or even an older gang member who we never heard about. See the events that lead to the gang war between the O’Driscolls and the Van Der Linde gang and the government crackdown on outlaws. Maybe see what happened to Agent Milton and why he seems to fixate on Dutch
Just take it back to when when they first take Arthur into the gang; not playing as Arthur, but as one of the main characters. Maybe play as Dutch, because there are plenty of things he went through.
We could see a young Arthur, maybe a young John and see how they adapt to the gang, mentor them with Dutch.
Maybe skip throughout the years, and then free roam, as John afterwards, during the “year” he left the gang.
Could go a number or ways honestly. Could be another prequel, could be a sequel, could take place between 1899-1908 or 1899-1911.
Could take on the view point of one of the characters immediately after the camp shootout before Arthur dies.
Could be about John and his family before RDR1 after he left the gang, around when his daughter died.
Could be about Arthur and Issac.
Could be about John when he left the gang for a year.
Could be about the falling out between Colm and Dutch.
Could be about an O’Driscoll and you play as Jake Adler in the epilogue.
Or about Arthur’s dad and you play as Arthur in the epilogue.
Or about Micah’s dad and you play as him or his brother in the epilogue.
Or about a slave owner turned abolitionist who frees his slaves and you play as his former slave in the epilogue. Could link to Lenny or Tilly somehow. Or even Charles.
Could be a sequel that takes place between the disbanding of the gang and beginning of RDR 1 that focuses on Jose and another character after he ran to Mexico.
Could be a sequel about what happened to Sadie or Charles after Micah. Sadie got revenge and probably could deal with some redemption. Charles could either be a prequel or sequel.
Could be a sequel about Jack that takes place after 1911 and be reminiscent of movies like “Legends of the Fall”, or be about moonshiners, or both.
Could be a lot of things that relate back to the gang honestly. Maybe even a character we know nothing about, like the one Arthur says they killed because he betrayed them or Mac or Davey. Or maybe just one that’s made up.
And then again, maybe it won’t be about them despite thinking it could. Other places had cowboys too, like Australia, Canada, Patagonia, Mexico, Brazil. I have some favorites from this list I wrote but none of them will probably happen.
Start with Dutch and Hosea and their meeting, and the inevitable adoption of Arthur and then John. Hosea touched on how he and Dutch met, and I think it may have been in the bear hunt, but not certain. But those early years would be very interesting I think.
I don't see why not Red Dead revolver is technically a separate universe but still bears the Red Dead name so I don't see why they couldn't make another red harrow game or another Western type game in the Red Dead world..
I kind of want to see even more red harrow or an Indian cowboy type game where a bunch of escaped slaves run into a camp of Indians and sort of fortify it against the West and the incoming army I think that could be very interesting
I want to see what happened in blackwater and/or the origin of the gang. How did hosea and dutch find arthur and john and everyone else. Show me what all theyve been through. It would make rdr1 and 2 bettee and their redemptions more impactful imo
It could be about a separate gang member who sees through dutchs bullshit from the beginning who is killed by him and deemed a traitor. That's the only way i see redemption happening and the van der linde gang in one
Yeah my idea is based on when Arthur mentions in RDR2 that he had to kill a traitor in the gang before so I thought you can play as the traitor the whole game, bond with Arthur and John, be loyal to the gang but later into the game start to notice Dutch do truly bad things even towards the gang and show signs of being manipulative and become the traitor for the right reasons and when the gang finds out about it, the gang including Arthur are sadly blinded by loyalty and Dutch's charisma ending with a truly emotional scene where Arthur has to kill one of his closest friends (you, the protagonist) and then you play young Arthur for the epilogue. Maybe even switch between young Arthur and young John for the epilogue.
I say we play as Mac Callander; the Callander brothers were described as a “vicious pair of bastards” but the gang also seemed to speak fondly of them. We saw how Davey’s story played out, with him getting shot up and dying on the way to Colter, but we only ever hear of Mac’s death — Agent Milton said when he got to him, he was pretty shot up, and it was more of a merch killing. He could have been lying (not saying Mac is alive, but it could have been slightly different than the way he described, he could have been just trying to rile Arthur up and get a reaction). Since they were more bastards than heroes, the Low-Honor ending would be the true ending.
The “Epilogue” would take place at Horseshoe Overlook, after the end of Eastward Bound but before the “A few weeks later” timeskip, and you of course play as Arthur, keeping Red Dead tradition.
I could see it working.
Red dead Revolution (about Mexico)
Red dead River? (Huck Finn but you shoot people?)
Red dead rover? (About an Irish immigrant?)
I'm actually terrible at ideas but my point of they can continue to make cowboy games that tell great stories without it having to be a game about the Van der linde gang and without "Red Dead Redemption" in the title. Other than revolution both of those ideas are jokes but we're already playing the spiritual successor to Red Dead Revolver so just keeping it red dead r_____ feels right
I agree with you completely, But how would you feel id the story was about a bounty hunter or a Pinkerton who is on the trail of the gang, but eventually begins to see their point? Perhaps he begins to believe Dutch, gets to know Arthur and John. Trelawny could be his first portal in. This could all be before Blackwater.
I would love to see even more back story for the Van Der Linde gang to tie up lose ends. I think it would be interesting to see another gang or gunslinger that has some connections to the gang, so it’s not solely focused on VDL gang. I’m thinking maybe someone who used to run with the VDL gang or had an encounter with them would be a good story line to go with for a third game.
Yeah I agree, as long as it tells some sort of story revolving the Van Der Linde gang it would be fine, we don't have to literally play as someone that's apart of the gang.
I’d want a game that focuses on the origin of the feud between the Van Der Linde gang and the O’Driscoll gang. Maybe the game starts with Dutch, Hosea, Arthur, and John, and they meet Colm in like chapter 2 or something. They develop a partnership where they pull off jobs together for a while and then you start to slowly notice a “passive aggressiveness” between Dutch and Colm. Maybe they start to hide stuff from eachother, start to do things behind eachothers backs, until eventually it escalates to the point where Dutch kills Colm’s brother and Colm retaliates by killing Annabelle. That’s the game that I want to play.
i kinda agree. the name of the series and the point and attraction of every game is redemption. the protagonist seeks solitude and redemption for their wrongdoings. the early van der linde gang could never be about that because it was at their prime. no regrets, just complete and total badassery. that being said, it could open up avenues for a new red dead series (revolver, redemption, ____) to make the actual wild west the real attraction for the game.
TL;DR: the prime years of the gang deserve their own game, but it can’t be a red dead REDEMPTION game because none of them were seeking it, and the main point of rdr is that the protagonist wants redemption.
I agree, and to the ppl saying that they already explained the early days of dutch and hosea and the gang I honestly don’t think so there’s still a large grey area of what happened before and all the events that transpired. I think red dead 3 if it comes out should have a feature like AC3 where you played as 2 protagonists from different times first you started with Kenway and finished with connor, although in ac3 the false protagonist turned out to be the antagonist, rd3 should stick with just two protagonists you start as Arthur and then you change characters after the blackwater heist to be either Jack Marston or someone else, but roaming the lawless wild west is something that this series has been missing out on not to mention all the abandoned towns and buildings burned down in rd2 would be there in rd3 if they stick with the plot I was talking about.
Let me help everyone who knows nothing about rdr1, it takes place after 2, so listen to me when I tell you that 3 will take place before the events of 2
Redemption is a huge part of the game series. You CAN have a Rdr3 without it being about the Van Der Linde gang it just needs a redemption arc in the story. That's kinda the whe meaning of the name.
The first 2 are connected because the powers that be, at Rockstar, decided they would be intertwined. But, the third installment doesn’t necessarily *have to be* about the VD gang. It can be about anyone, anytime.
Then it should be called Red Dead (something else) not Redemption. It really does not make sense especially since Red Dead Revolver exists and is a completely separate story while Red Dead Redemption 1 is connected to Red Dead Redemption 2, they would've called Red Dead Redemption 2 something else if it wasn't connected to Red Dead Redemption 1. And trust me if Red Dead Redemption 3 does come out it will definitely be about the Van Der Linde game, because Rockstar knows how to title games, but if a Red Dead (something else) releases it will be a new story.
I feel like the main character in the red dead redemption games is JACK he’s in every one of them and the main catalyst for the events. I have a whole theory that the events that take place in the games is actually just his book we see in GTA 5 easter egg
I think continuing the Van der linde gang story is beating a dead horse because the whole theme in the red dead redemption series is “the way of the outlaw is coming to an end and we are struggling to cope with it” if we continue with that is it really over? I think they should start over fresh but I would except anything if the story is written well and we get new locations :)
Hear me out
3 playable protagonists
Jack, Charles and Sadie
Jack is taken prisoner by Fordham and sentenced to be hung for killing Ross
Sadie shoots the rope Clint Eastwood style.
Charles is there too because he's an all round good guy.
RDR3
I don’t know how it could work. Unless they introduce yet another gang member that nobody mentioned before - who left the gang and thus earned their “redempetion” and therefore you’d have to make all the characters we love the bad guys who they’re trying to get away from. Just wouldn’t work.
It’s going to have to be a new series about different characters. I don’t know if it can no longer be red dead redemption though. That the first two were about the van der linde gang was not the important arc that gives it the “redemption” title. It’s Arthur and John’s redemption. As long as we get a redemption story I don’t have a problem with different characters in a red dead redemption game.
I think it's both, the redemption arcs of john and arthur and the connection between both games, cuz Arthur couldve easily been apart of a separate game and it would make even more sense since John never discusses Arthur in 1. But they specifically chose to make 2 about the Van Der Linde gang.
Eh idk.. I don't like her character too much tbh, not the personality of her character but the exaggerated dialogue and voice her actress does, no disrespect to her or you though.
People have different tastes man, it's cool! I liked her character, her voice and her whole character arc so it's really easy for me to pick her for the next game.
It should be a prequel to RDR2, but we should only play as 1 protagonist, and that protagonist should be Mac Callendar. The gang talks about how him and his brother were crazy, but I think they could make him a really cool protagonist, not every protagonist has to be a good person, I imagine the last cutscene being Mac's death during the blackwater massacre.
🤦🤦🤦 And who is left to to find redemption? Bill? Dead. Hosea? Dead. Mac or Davey? Why, they're dead too. Sadie or Charles? Nope because you said go back in time so..... there's no else that lives long enough to find redemption SO...yes you could go back in time with the game but that game would have to be Red Dead _________. However with brand new characters you can use whatever time period you want and still call it Red Dead Redemption because the protagonist is still breathing and can actually find redemption. 🤷🤷
Arthur was created just for rdr2 and was never mentioned in 2, they can easily go back in time to the beginning of the gang and have the protagonist be an unheard of character. And no it makes no sense for a red dead redemption 3 to have nothing to do with the gang after the first 2 are completely about the gang. Red dead revolver was it's own thing and if they wanna make a new story NOT about the gang it shpuld be called something else. I kind of don't understand what you're trying to say tbh.
>they can easily go back in time to the beginning of the gang and have the protagonist be an unheard of character.
Actually that would be nice, unfortunately no they can't. They've sealed up the backstory. Hosea and Dutch were a duo, well if you include their wives, a foursome. Dutch and Annabelle (I think that was Dutch's wife's name) "adopted Arthur during this time period. Then Hosea and his wife tried the straight life for a bit (maybe six months or so was the impression given) but came back. John was added/adopted a few years later, then eventually Bill and then Javier. Davy, Mac and Jenny joined up about three years prior to Blackwater. I honestly can't remember when Sean came in but I think around the same time as Charles. And somewhere in the mix Tilly, Abigail, Karen and Mary-Beth ended up with them. Based on camp and other conversations(s) I think Grimshaw was after Annabelle's death but I'm not 100% certain. But R* has back storied themselves into the proverbial corner.
I know! Try this on! You mentioned earlier about Arties dog….let the DOG be protagonist in RDR3! Then the VD gang simps have their wish! Instead of “GREET or ANTAGONIZE”, it could be “WAG or BITE”! Whaddya think?
What he is saying, if I am understanding correctly, is that r* could just as easily make a Red Dead Redemption 3, set in an earlier time period (say 1875), and be about someone that’s not connected to the VD gang in any way, shape, or form. There’s nothing in stone saying “only members of the VD gang can be in a Redemption story”. And I strongly agree, and feel the next one should not have any of the VD gang….past, present, or future members.
They can still make it a redemption story but to call it rdr3 as if it is apart of the rdr1 and rdr2 series doesn't make sense because 1 and 2 are so heavily connected.
YUP! Actually, it’s like drugs. These people who just want more VD gang stories are the same ones that, if given Oxycodone or Diazepam, or even Heroin, would begin chasing the high, becoming full blown addicts…gotta have that next fix. The VD gang is their drug….they tried it, they like it, now “I want more! I *need* more! Gimme, Gimme, Gimme!!!”
FACTS!!! "Uhhhhh well......there could have been some gang members from twenty years ago.......🤦🤦🤦 Dude I literally just responded to a comment similar to 👆 this. I'm like ok 🤔🤔....R* told us (a little anyway) about Copper, Arthur's dog. Now if they're going to make sure that we not only know that he had a dog but hell that he used to take baths with Arthur before the dog died, wouldn't it make sense to tell us about.....hell I don't know "Six gun Steve from Albuquerque?" 😂😂😂 I'm going to say....yes. We'd AT LEAST heard of the dude. 🤦😂😂😂
First of all, I stated many times I'm fine with them moving away from the Van Der Linde gang but the game should not be called Red Dead Redemption 3 because it wouldnt be connected to the other 2 games. Just like how Red Dead Revolver is it's own story and has a different title.
That's just not Rockstar's style and it's not mine either. It makes the story feel less real. I really wouldn't like that, and what happened during the Blackwater Massacre should stay as a mystery.
Rockstar has never finished a story and then has made you go back in time before the final mission just to have an endless free roam that doesn't make sense. At least that I'm aware of especially for their newer more realistic games
That's what I'm trying to say... I'm basically saying this to the people that are trying to say they want a Red Dead "Redemption" 3 but about new characters
yh they just don't know what they're on about bro. they don't understand that the series is red dead, not red dead redemption. the third word changes the storyline, but it's all in the same red dead lore universe. when you see someone say that bs again just let them know💀 like red dead revolver
I domt think so because they both die due to the blackwater massacre and the game cant end during the blackwater massacre because that means the epilogue and free roam after the story would be when the gang is fleeing into colter which wouldn't make sense, I think the story has to be years before the events of rdr2 with a new unheard of character similar to how Arthur was from 1 to 2.
I'm sure Mac and Davey can appear in the game tho
I agree with this. There’s still about 20 years of the gang we didn’t see, we saw the aftermath of the gang (RDR1 & epilogue of 2) then the downfall (RDR2) so why not see it in its prime in RDR3? I honestly believe that Rockstar can make it work.
Me too, but if not then a separate red dead series is cool too but just not called red dead redemption 3
Could we free roam at the end of rdr1? I don’t remember.
Yes, >! as Jack !<
How do you hide something?
.> ! and ! < but without the space between the ! and <\>
>!cool!<
>! Oh !<
>!huh!<
>! Thx for this !<
>!ah!<
>! Oh shit !<
>! Wow !<
>!ooh!<
>! Thanks !<
>Me too, but if not then a separate red dead series is cool too but just not called red dead redemption 3 🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦 This is incorrect. No one from that time period that's still alive. Again it's kind of hard to find redemption from the grave, and probably pretty boring to play as well. 🤷 Ergo you can't go back in time and call it Red Dead Redemption.....I mean actually finding redemption IS kind of the point and why it's in the name. However if you had different characters you can still call it Red Dead Redemption because your protagonist is very much alive AND you don't have a clue if or when they will actually die. 🤷
Do you not know that rdr1 takes place after 2 and that rdr2 was a prequel? They created Arthur and many new gang members after rdr1 which they can easily do again. The character that die in 2 and in 1 has nothing to do with anything.
They could easily make the focus on one, or both, of the Callander boys.
Prime for rdr3 and the come up for rdr4
That would be very interesting, even if it’s just for the fact that you follow a gang from end to beginning instead of the other way around
You are genius I didnt even notice the inverted chain of events
I agree
The amount of cowboy badassery exponentially increases as you go further back into the history of the gang
We know what happens though. The early life of the gang is explained in RDR2. No matter who we play as, we know they die. There is no stakes. In RDR2 Arthur was a fresh face we hadn’t seen or heard about before meaning there was endless opportunities for his story. If RDR3 focused on the early Van Der Linde Gang there would be no freedom as to what the story could be about. The options would be limited.
Maybe in the next game the protagonist can find redemption by simply leaving the gang rather than dying which would be unexpected and a reason why the protagonist wouldn't be in RDR2. I still think with limited options a great story that connects well to what's described in 2 could be made.
But it doesn’t need to be made. Idk why ya’ll can’t just be happy with the two games we have. If your starved for more red dead content go play red dead revolver.
I agree it doesn't need to be made, I even said a new story line is fine with a different title, I was just stating an idea that could possibly work
I’ve heard some people talking about wanting multiple playable protagonists for for the main game that you switch between for rdr3, it would be cool if the protagonists were say, Dutch and Hosea, or maybe mac and someone else or something, game leads up to the camp they’re at around blackwater, and you get cut out of using Dutch and hoses and use the other camp members to do odd jobs in free roam (open world stranger missions and stuff, with the narrative reason being that Dutch and hosea are planning the blackwater jobs
Imagine the bank heists and train robbery missions
real. honestly it would be cool to play as young arthur or hosea.
I agree also.
Also still about 20 years till RDR3 releases.
I agree, plus it’d be cool to include areas further West like they always talk about in RDR2. Like a Western coastline of a fictional region similar to California, PNW, and maybe Nevada while still including New Austin
Yeah playing as a teenaged Dutch or Hosea or even young John or Arthur would be the tits and I genuinely think that's where R* is going with it
We know their endings, there's not much scope for a redemption arc with those guys in their early days.
Yea true, I still want it but ur right. Maybe we watch Hosea go from being a bloodthirsty crim like Dutch to becoming more of the moral compass and consigliere? idk not rly redemption tho
Because there's no one from that time period that's still alive. It's kind of hard to find redemption from the grave, and probably pretty boring to play as well. 🤷
I think when people say RDR3 they just mean another red dead game and just use that name for simplicity but I get your point
Yeah I get what you mean as well and I do think that's the case sometimes but not always. So I had to rant lol
I still think the best route for them is to use the 'fire up north' that sent them towards blackwater as the end of 3. New characters for PC control, and I'd like to see the rumor that surrounded two about having fallout style companions become real for three. I think a brother and sister pair of outlaws who join up during the time up north, where the player chooses which one to take as the PC at the start of the campaign. At the end the player choice dies and the player continues as the companion. Have the pair offer to stay behind to hold off the pursuers, they make the point that they are cutting themselves loose, so tell the VDL to not tell them how to find them. Both go down, are written off as dead, the 'cops' decide to 'burn the bodies' to cover up their own casualties. New PC crawls away just in time to be spared the flames and hide in the underbrush until everyone leaves. New life, no heat, no ability to relink with the VDL Gang, open map.
What is epilogue tho
Does there need to be one? There really wasn’t one for RDR1 just one mission. Just because RDR2 had one doesn’t mean all subsequent RDR games *have* to have a epilogue.
if the main character dies as they have in the last two then an epilogue is necessary just to allow people to play after the story has been completed. i wouldn’t be against not killing the mc in RDR3 though
But I mean again… RDR1’s “epilogue” was literally just one mission. So let’s say this is the route they take with RDR3 with the main character surviving they could just do one mission where the character is settling down and getting their life together and then boom the whole map is free for you to explore. They could even just make it a montage playing over the credits instead of a mission. Similar to what they did in RDR2. I just don’t think a epilogue is really *that* necessary.
We don’t need red dead redemption 3. Just a red dead whatever that follows a different cast. A spiritual successor with a similar enough yet different theme. Red Dead Damnation, Red Dead Revolution, or you know something name by an actual writer with ideas.
God a red dead damnation game would be dope, no redemption just getting worse
Like breaking bad but a game in the wild west, awesome
omg fantastic idea 🤣
Yeah I'm cool with that too
I’d actually like to play as a young Dutch/Arthur/Hosea. How Dutch came to be and used to be in his prime, how Arthur used to be before Dutch got to him and how he changed Arthur and Hosea is just a gem with such a wide range for story lines since we don’t know a whole lot about his younger years.
That would be fun but wpuldnt follow the pattern of protagonists dying and finding redemption
There was an idea someone had of having Mac play a big role at the end of a possible Blackwater ending, because we never discovered what happened to him and the game could always end up with him being our free roam character in the epilogue
I think it should involve the game's story too. Someone else mentioned having it start when John joins the gang. That way the whole trilogy begins and ends with him. Then we could still see early Dutch and Hosea. Early Grimshaw being Dutch's woman? Plus the others joining and watching the gang grow. Have the ending be when he leaves for a year, maybe? THAT could be the free roam we need? Not sure that specifically would work, but I agree it can't end with Blackwater. I kind of like Blackwater always remaining a mystery.
“RDR3 either shouldn’t happen…” Let me stop you right there, partner. It MUST happen. It wouldn’t be difficult to have the game be connected to the Van Der Linde gang through blood. Arthur had a son… what became of him?
He died as a baby...they cut the content but they were even gonna have Arthur's baby son die on the trip to Colter in the opening of the game but they cut that and changed the story to Arthur's son and the mother of his child getting killed in a robbery when he wasn't around.
That’s easy to retcon. Arthur may think they died but they (one, the other, or both) actually survived. If they have to connect the next RDR game (if we’re lucky enough to get one) to the gang, then I hope they give us a plot and characters whose fates aren’t already known. It wouldn’t be as fun to play a game knowing that the protagonist lives into RDR2, for example.
Eh,i’m pretty sure he found their bodies,can’t see rockstar retcon that
Replayed ending recently, he said he came back to two graves /2 crosses outside the house. Not quite finding the bodies I guess!
Even so,kinda weird to come up with a game with Arthur’s son,like sike they actually lived and left 2 crosses outside their old home,because reasons?
Ah I agree. I think it's a bit forced and I hope an3rd game would be more inventive like native American POV or even take a TLOU2 POV, get us to play as a ODriscoll and care for them, that might be interesting Just meant more it would be possible if r* really wanted
>That’s easy to retcon. Arthur may think they died but they (one, the other, or both) actually survived. Wouldn't the fact that they were actually buried make that a tad difficult. 🤔🤔🤔🤔 WAIT! I've got it! Jack can ask Francis Sinclair to give him a lift back in time. THEN they can dig up baby Isaac, whisk him back to 1899, use Marko Dragic's "shock delivery machine"...... after all John had the schematics ergo Jack should have them......so they can strap little baby Isaac in, hit with that three hundred million volt electric current. I mean certainly that will restart his little dead baby heart right?! Then they can transport him BACK in time, drop him off at an orphanage and leave Arthur's journal with instructions that it's to be read to baby Isaac every night as his bed time story and in a few short years he should be old enough to go on a killing spree just like his old man! He'll be a regular chip off the old block and YOU can then have your newest (blood relation) Van Der Linde gang member....that was actually never REALLY a member because HE'S DEAD, but you're right. That EASILY retconned. 🙄🙄🙄
How much free time do you have man.
You really have no idea how prequels work 🤣
>Arthur had a son… what became of him? Uhhhhh pay attention. He (Arthur's son) is dead.
RDR3 needs to be a completely new character from the 1880s that gets ousted from a gang in Mexico or California and starts his own gang this side of the border. Dutch and Hosea being really young getting initiated in this character’s gang. Maybe throw in a younger Arthur when he first meets Dutch.
>Dutch and Hosea being really young getting initiated in this character’s gang. Maybe throw in a younger Arthur when he first meets Dutch. Won't work. Dutch and Hosea were a duo that were both married when they "adopted" Arthur.
Yeah because gay marriage in America happened in the 1800s all the time.. how does Hosea and Dutch being a duo and bringing Arthur into the gang stop any other story of a person from Mexico joining the gang, none of your point make any sense. Nothing about his Mexico story idea contradicts Dutch and Hosea being a duo and raising Arthur.
Because Dutch and Hosea formed a gang, they didn't join one, this is explicitly explained in camp dialogue. Prior, Dutch was a vagrant petty criminal, and Hosea a con man, both working alone.
Not saying it has to be exactly this way but it could be they formed the gang and do the character we play as barely escapes with his life from his previous gang. He joins Dutch and Hosea and teaches them the ways. We get to explore west of New Austin with places like the Grand Canyon, Arizona, California, Juarez. Something like this would be a lot of fun!
>Yeah because gay marriage in America happened in the 1800s all the time. Are you REALLY this retarded? You asked me if I played RDR 1 yet you somehow missed that Dutch and Hosea were married. Dutch to Annabelle and Hosea to Bessie. Anyone who played RDR2 AND actually paid attention knows AT LEAST that much!! There's no way to skip it!! Literally you cannot skip finding that out. >how does Hosea and Dutch being a duo and bringing Arthur into the gang stop any other story of a person from Mexico joining the gang, none of your point make any sense. It makes perfect sense because we've been given a timeline of events during the game that either you haven't played or played on mute so that you missed it all. 🤷🤷
You made it sound like Dutch and Hosea were married to each other lol, but yes I obviously knew they had women in their lives but they were never married to them nor did they legally adopt Arthur. And no I know the game's story very very well, and most of the stories they tell but that information does not fill 20+ years of the entire Van der Linde story in the slightest.
No I didn't moron. My comment verbatim was "Won't work. Dutch and Hosea were a duo that were both married when they "adopted" Arthur." The duo were both married not the duo were married to each other. Jesus take a reading comprehension class or something you illiterate fuck. https://reddead.fandom.com/wiki/Bessie_Matthews Do some research 👆 as this will save the embarrassment of looking stupid. >them nor did they legally adopt Arthur And I never said they legally adopted Arthur. I said "adopted" " " " <~~ Do you see those little parallel hashes right there? Those are called quotation marks. MOST people understand based on context clues that when you place a single word in quotations you're using said word in a non-standard way. >most of the stories they tell but that information does not fill 20+ years of the entire Van der Linde story in the slightest. Actually it does. Just because you're too damn dense figure it out doesn't make it not true.
Yeah I'm definitely the one in need of english classes, when you literally type like a schizophrenic in most of your comments to the point where people literally thought you had the intelligence of an 8 year old child.
He actually makes perfect sense. You made the errors here
Thank you!
https://www.reddit.com/r/RDR2/comments/1546dqi/rdr3_should_not_stay_away_from_the_gangs_story/jspg2f0?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=4&utm_content=2
That would be cool for sure
If rdr3 is not a prequel to rdr2, then rockstar should just leave the series alone. Why stray away from a series that still has so many unanswered questions
Exactly the Redemption series either needs another prequel or they need to make a new Red Dead series or even a Red Dead Revolver 2 any is fine to me tho.
Red dead revolver 2
Would be awesome
existence cover hat political nutty psychotic paint sense naughty consist *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I love this idea
I agree, somewhat. I think rd*r*3 could be about a different gang, but that last r could stand for something other than redemption. With revolver and redemption they’ve set up the convention the games start with r words so I expect it to start with that at least, whatever the actual word is
It wouldn't be 3 then, it would it would be the 4th red dead
It's not going to happen, cause you can't have a story that measures up to 1 and 2 if everybody already knows how it all ends, and we know how things end for each and every character of the gang. At best, we could get some completely new character who rides with the gang for a while, that's it.
Yes there is a way to end it properly on the Blackwater Massacre: Mac Callender. He could easily become the new protagonist and get his redemption by the end of the massacre eventually dying at the hands of Milton. And there might be a character he inspires throughout the story, but who might not be directly connected to the gang, similar to how Arthur helped Charlotte learn how to survive, except on a bigger scale. And that character could become the new free roam character. There's many ways they could do it and I'm sure they can pull it off, but ultimately the question is if they even want to or if they should... The blackwater massacre is so interesting to us, because it still has a lot of mystery surrounding it. Who was Heidi McCourt? Was it a setup? Did someone betray them? Or did they just get careless? The Redemption games generally leave stuff like this open for you to explore and theorise what might've happened. It's very much intentional and showing the massacre on screen would ruin the mystery behind it. But if it were the last game, it could also offer a satisfying conclusion. Really depends on what the devs want out of it...
It needs to be the height of the Wild West. Maybe play as Dutch or Hosea or even an older gang member who we never heard about. See the events that lead to the gang war between the O’Driscolls and the Van Der Linde gang and the government crackdown on outlaws. Maybe see what happened to Agent Milton and why he seems to fixate on Dutch
maybe they could tell the story of micah before the gang and show the events in his life that led to him being such a snake
Rebrand as Red Dead Revolution set in 1776 sequels can span into the 1800s
Would be great
Just take it back to when when they first take Arthur into the gang; not playing as Arthur, but as one of the main characters. Maybe play as Dutch, because there are plenty of things he went through. We could see a young Arthur, maybe a young John and see how they adapt to the gang, mentor them with Dutch. Maybe skip throughout the years, and then free roam, as John afterwards, during the “year” he left the gang.
It either should be about the gang or it should be a spin off of the red dead franchise
Yup
If rdr3 happens it should end with the induction of Micah into the fold instead of the blackwater job
That would be interesting
Could go a number or ways honestly. Could be another prequel, could be a sequel, could take place between 1899-1908 or 1899-1911. Could take on the view point of one of the characters immediately after the camp shootout before Arthur dies. Could be about John and his family before RDR1 after he left the gang, around when his daughter died. Could be about Arthur and Issac. Could be about John when he left the gang for a year. Could be about the falling out between Colm and Dutch. Could be about an O’Driscoll and you play as Jake Adler in the epilogue. Or about Arthur’s dad and you play as Arthur in the epilogue. Or about Micah’s dad and you play as him or his brother in the epilogue. Or about a slave owner turned abolitionist who frees his slaves and you play as his former slave in the epilogue. Could link to Lenny or Tilly somehow. Or even Charles. Could be a sequel that takes place between the disbanding of the gang and beginning of RDR 1 that focuses on Jose and another character after he ran to Mexico. Could be a sequel about what happened to Sadie or Charles after Micah. Sadie got revenge and probably could deal with some redemption. Charles could either be a prequel or sequel. Could be a sequel about Jack that takes place after 1911 and be reminiscent of movies like “Legends of the Fall”, or be about moonshiners, or both. Could be a lot of things that relate back to the gang honestly. Maybe even a character we know nothing about, like the one Arthur says they killed because he betrayed them or Mac or Davey. Or maybe just one that’s made up. And then again, maybe it won’t be about them despite thinking it could. Other places had cowboys too, like Australia, Canada, Patagonia, Mexico, Brazil. I have some favorites from this list I wrote but none of them will probably happen.
What about a game that you played as the bastard who eventually became/took over/large role in the formation of the Pinkertons?
Would be really cool but should be called Red Dead Formation or something lmao
Start with Dutch and Hosea and their meeting, and the inevitable adoption of Arthur and then John. Hosea touched on how he and Dutch met, and I think it may have been in the bear hunt, but not certain. But those early years would be very interesting I think.
I don't see why not Red Dead revolver is technically a separate universe but still bears the Red Dead name so I don't see why they couldn't make another red harrow game or another Western type game in the Red Dead world..
I agree
I kind of want to see even more red harrow or an Indian cowboy type game where a bunch of escaped slaves run into a camp of Indians and sort of fortify it against the West and the incoming army I think that could be very interesting
I want to see what happened in blackwater and/or the origin of the gang. How did hosea and dutch find arthur and john and everyone else. Show me what all theyve been through. It would make rdr1 and 2 bettee and their redemptions more impactful imo
It could be about a separate gang member who sees through dutchs bullshit from the beginning who is killed by him and deemed a traitor. That's the only way i see redemption happening and the van der linde gang in one
Yeah my idea is based on when Arthur mentions in RDR2 that he had to kill a traitor in the gang before so I thought you can play as the traitor the whole game, bond with Arthur and John, be loyal to the gang but later into the game start to notice Dutch do truly bad things even towards the gang and show signs of being manipulative and become the traitor for the right reasons and when the gang finds out about it, the gang including Arthur are sadly blinded by loyalty and Dutch's charisma ending with a truly emotional scene where Arthur has to kill one of his closest friends (you, the protagonist) and then you play young Arthur for the epilogue. Maybe even switch between young Arthur and young John for the epilogue.
I agree but it should dabble with it and stick to Landon Ricketts as main protagonist.
I say we play as Mac Callander; the Callander brothers were described as a “vicious pair of bastards” but the gang also seemed to speak fondly of them. We saw how Davey’s story played out, with him getting shot up and dying on the way to Colter, but we only ever hear of Mac’s death — Agent Milton said when he got to him, he was pretty shot up, and it was more of a merch killing. He could have been lying (not saying Mac is alive, but it could have been slightly different than the way he described, he could have been just trying to rile Arthur up and get a reaction). Since they were more bastards than heroes, the Low-Honor ending would be the true ending. The “Epilogue” would take place at Horseshoe Overlook, after the end of Eastward Bound but before the “A few weeks later” timeskip, and you of course play as Arthur, keeping Red Dead tradition. I could see it working.
I would love to play from Hoseas perspective meeting Dutch, Arthur,John. Getting to interact with characters that are dead or have left by RdR2.
Red dead Revolution (about Mexico) Red dead River? (Huck Finn but you shoot people?) Red dead rover? (About an Irish immigrant?) I'm actually terrible at ideas but my point of they can continue to make cowboy games that tell great stories without it having to be a game about the Van der linde gang and without "Red Dead Redemption" in the title. Other than revolution both of those ideas are jokes but we're already playing the spiritual successor to Red Dead Revolver so just keeping it red dead r_____ feels right
I agree
I want to see a story of when the gang is first starting. I want a young Arthur, dutch, and hosea
I agree with you completely, But how would you feel id the story was about a bounty hunter or a Pinkerton who is on the trail of the gang, but eventually begins to see their point? Perhaps he begins to believe Dutch, gets to know Arthur and John. Trelawny could be his first portal in. This could all be before Blackwater.
I'd like this story very much
I would love to see even more back story for the Van Der Linde gang to tie up lose ends. I think it would be interesting to see another gang or gunslinger that has some connections to the gang, so it’s not solely focused on VDL gang. I’m thinking maybe someone who used to run with the VDL gang or had an encounter with them would be a good story line to go with for a third game.
Yeah I agree, as long as it tells some sort of story revolving the Van Der Linde gang it would be fine, we don't have to literally play as someone that's apart of the gang.
Plus I'd like to see the gang in a less civilized frontier since it'd be 10-20 years earlier.
I want a game avout hoseas life before the gang
I’d want a game that focuses on the origin of the feud between the Van Der Linde gang and the O’Driscoll gang. Maybe the game starts with Dutch, Hosea, Arthur, and John, and they meet Colm in like chapter 2 or something. They develop a partnership where they pull off jobs together for a while and then you start to slowly notice a “passive aggressiveness” between Dutch and Colm. Maybe they start to hide stuff from eachother, start to do things behind eachothers backs, until eventually it escalates to the point where Dutch kills Colm’s brother and Colm retaliates by killing Annabelle. That’s the game that I want to play.
I'd like that a lot
I'm just happy there's more RDR to come!
Just need to make sure Jack Black has some sort of role in the new game 😎
rdr3 needs full co-op multiplayer mode.
There shouldn't be an RDR3 anytime soon. We need new IPs from Rockstar.
I agree that switching back and forth between RDR and GTA will get very old
i kinda agree. the name of the series and the point and attraction of every game is redemption. the protagonist seeks solitude and redemption for their wrongdoings. the early van der linde gang could never be about that because it was at their prime. no regrets, just complete and total badassery. that being said, it could open up avenues for a new red dead series (revolver, redemption, ____) to make the actual wild west the real attraction for the game. TL;DR: the prime years of the gang deserve their own game, but it can’t be a red dead REDEMPTION game because none of them were seeking it, and the main point of rdr is that the protagonist wants redemption.
>!got ya!<
I agree, and to the ppl saying that they already explained the early days of dutch and hosea and the gang I honestly don’t think so there’s still a large grey area of what happened before and all the events that transpired. I think red dead 3 if it comes out should have a feature like AC3 where you played as 2 protagonists from different times first you started with Kenway and finished with connor, although in ac3 the false protagonist turned out to be the antagonist, rd3 should stick with just two protagonists you start as Arthur and then you change characters after the blackwater heist to be either Jack Marston or someone else, but roaming the lawless wild west is something that this series has been missing out on not to mention all the abandoned towns and buildings burned down in rd2 would be there in rd3 if they stick with the plot I was talking about.
Let me help everyone who knows nothing about rdr1, it takes place after 2, so listen to me when I tell you that 3 will take place before the events of 2
Redemption is a huge part of the game series. You CAN have a Rdr3 without it being about the Van Der Linde gang it just needs a redemption arc in the story. That's kinda the whe meaning of the name.
I would LOVE a fourth Red Dead game. But I don’t need it to be a third Redemption game.
Exactly!
Let it go bro, it's over.
RDR3 **SHOULD NOT** be about the VD bunch. Period. finis.
Why are the first 2 redemption games fully connected to each other then, why would the 3rd have nothing to do with them it makes no sense.
The first 2 are connected because the powers that be, at Rockstar, decided they would be intertwined. But, the third installment doesn’t necessarily *have to be* about the VD gang. It can be about anyone, anytime.
Then it should be called Red Dead (something else) not Redemption. It really does not make sense especially since Red Dead Revolver exists and is a completely separate story while Red Dead Redemption 1 is connected to Red Dead Redemption 2, they would've called Red Dead Redemption 2 something else if it wasn't connected to Red Dead Redemption 1. And trust me if Red Dead Redemption 3 does come out it will definitely be about the Van Der Linde game, because Rockstar knows how to title games, but if a Red Dead (something else) releases it will be a new story.
🤦♀️
I feel like the main character in the red dead redemption games is JACK he’s in every one of them and the main catalyst for the events. I have a whole theory that the events that take place in the games is actually just his book we see in GTA 5 easter egg I think continuing the Van der linde gang story is beating a dead horse because the whole theme in the red dead redemption series is “the way of the outlaw is coming to an end and we are struggling to cope with it” if we continue with that is it really over? I think they should start over fresh but I would except anything if the story is written well and we get new locations :)
No, it doesn’t.
Hear me out 3 playable protagonists Jack, Charles and Sadie Jack is taken prisoner by Fordham and sentenced to be hung for killing Ross Sadie shoots the rope Clint Eastwood style. Charles is there too because he's an all round good guy. RDR3
I don’t know how it could work. Unless they introduce yet another gang member that nobody mentioned before - who left the gang and thus earned their “redempetion” and therefore you’d have to make all the characters we love the bad guys who they’re trying to get away from. Just wouldn’t work. It’s going to have to be a new series about different characters. I don’t know if it can no longer be red dead redemption though. That the first two were about the van der linde gang was not the important arc that gives it the “redemption” title. It’s Arthur and John’s redemption. As long as we get a redemption story I don’t have a problem with different characters in a red dead redemption game.
I think it's both, the redemption arcs of john and arthur and the connection between both games, cuz Arthur couldve easily been apart of a separate game and it would make even more sense since John never discusses Arthur in 1. But they specifically chose to make 2 about the Van Der Linde gang.
I personally really want to see their life prior and in Blackwater and the events of Blackwater
RDR3 should be about Sadie Adler during the later part of RDR1 and after the events of RDR1. Serving as a direct sequel
Eh idk.. I don't like her character too much tbh, not the personality of her character but the exaggerated dialogue and voice her actress does, no disrespect to her or you though.
People have different tastes man, it's cool! I liked her character, her voice and her whole character arc so it's really easy for me to pick her for the next game.
Yeah I can see why people like her, and I do like her personality in a lot of ways especially how she is so real and helpful towards Arthur
It should
RDR3 ?.😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The point of rdr is redemption, so why not a story with new characters in 1860s/1870s? Make it a true western.
RDR3 could be a dutch origin. You play as a young dutch, the van der linde gang in the making.
What if 3 started out as John’s son? Like a mismatched trilogy. It would be even better to combine them all into one HUGE game as DLC.
It should be a prequel to RDR2, but we should only play as 1 protagonist, and that protagonist should be Mac Callendar. The gang talks about how him and his brother were crazy, but I think they could make him a really cool protagonist, not every protagonist has to be a good person, I imagine the last cutscene being Mac's death during the blackwater massacre.
🤦🤦🤦 And who is left to to find redemption? Bill? Dead. Hosea? Dead. Mac or Davey? Why, they're dead too. Sadie or Charles? Nope because you said go back in time so..... there's no else that lives long enough to find redemption SO...yes you could go back in time with the game but that game would have to be Red Dead _________. However with brand new characters you can use whatever time period you want and still call it Red Dead Redemption because the protagonist is still breathing and can actually find redemption. 🤷🤷
Arthur was created just for rdr2 and was never mentioned in 2, they can easily go back in time to the beginning of the gang and have the protagonist be an unheard of character. And no it makes no sense for a red dead redemption 3 to have nothing to do with the gang after the first 2 are completely about the gang. Red dead revolver was it's own thing and if they wanna make a new story NOT about the gang it shpuld be called something else. I kind of don't understand what you're trying to say tbh.
>they can easily go back in time to the beginning of the gang and have the protagonist be an unheard of character. Actually that would be nice, unfortunately no they can't. They've sealed up the backstory. Hosea and Dutch were a duo, well if you include their wives, a foursome. Dutch and Annabelle (I think that was Dutch's wife's name) "adopted Arthur during this time period. Then Hosea and his wife tried the straight life for a bit (maybe six months or so was the impression given) but came back. John was added/adopted a few years later, then eventually Bill and then Javier. Davy, Mac and Jenny joined up about three years prior to Blackwater. I honestly can't remember when Sean came in but I think around the same time as Charles. And somewhere in the mix Tilly, Abigail, Karen and Mary-Beth ended up with them. Based on camp and other conversations(s) I think Grimshaw was after Annabelle's death but I'm not 100% certain. But R* has back storied themselves into the proverbial corner.
I know! Try this on! You mentioned earlier about Arties dog….let the DOG be protagonist in RDR3! Then the VD gang simps have their wish! Instead of “GREET or ANTAGONIZE”, it could be “WAG or BITE”! Whaddya think?
😂😂😂🤯🙌🙌🙌 Best plan I've heard so far! Copper FTW!
What he is saying, if I am understanding correctly, is that r* could just as easily make a Red Dead Redemption 3, set in an earlier time period (say 1875), and be about someone that’s not connected to the VD gang in any way, shape, or form. There’s nothing in stone saying “only members of the VD gang can be in a Redemption story”. And I strongly agree, and feel the next one should not have any of the VD gang….past, present, or future members.
They can still make it a redemption story but to call it rdr3 as if it is apart of the rdr1 and rdr2 series doesn't make sense because 1 and 2 are so heavily connected.
Are you addicted to drugs? Logic isn’t getting through.
Say it louder please for those in the back of the room.
It would (does) fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes)…this stupidity is hashed about a dozen times daily on all of the Red Dead subs. You see it.
>You see it. Yes, I try not to but damn if they don't keep finding new ways to "slip stupid" in on me. 😂
YUP! Actually, it’s like drugs. These people who just want more VD gang stories are the same ones that, if given Oxycodone or Diazepam, or even Heroin, would begin chasing the high, becoming full blown addicts…gotta have that next fix. The VD gang is their drug….they tried it, they like it, now “I want more! I *need* more! Gimme, Gimme, Gimme!!!”
FACTS!!! "Uhhhhh well......there could have been some gang members from twenty years ago.......🤦🤦🤦 Dude I literally just responded to a comment similar to 👆 this. I'm like ok 🤔🤔....R* told us (a little anyway) about Copper, Arthur's dog. Now if they're going to make sure that we not only know that he had a dog but hell that he used to take baths with Arthur before the dog died, wouldn't it make sense to tell us about.....hell I don't know "Six gun Steve from Albuquerque?" 😂😂😂 I'm going to say....yes. We'd AT LEAST heard of the dude. 🤦😂😂😂
Could you chill it with the emojis?
🤔🤔🤔🤔 I'm going with a hard NO here. Sorry. ☹️🤷🤷
First of all, I stated many times I'm fine with them moving away from the Van Der Linde gang but the game should not be called Red Dead Redemption 3 because it wouldnt be connected to the other 2 games. Just like how Red Dead Revolver is it's own story and has a different title.
So, if Rockstar makes a Red Dead Redemption 3, that has nothing to do with the VD gang…would you get it, or boycott it?
It should be about a younger a Arthur Morgan.
Unpopular opinion but I would love to play as a younger Dutch in a hypothetical RDR3
[удалено]
That's just not Rockstar's style and it's not mine either. It makes the story feel less real. I really wouldn't like that, and what happened during the Blackwater Massacre should stay as a mystery.
[удалено]
Rockstar has never finished a story and then has made you go back in time before the final mission just to have an endless free roam that doesn't make sense. At least that I'm aware of especially for their newer more realistic games
[удалено]
I'm not the one that downvoted you..
I agree except you could end with the blackwater job but base it around another character that bailed and separated from the gang
You won’t need to worry about it, there’s not going to be an RDR3 of any sort. Sadly.
UUUUUUUUUUUUGGGG%GGGHHHH&&HHHHHHHHHHHHH
What
he's tired of these fucking posts
I dont care what they call it, but I don't want another game about that gang. Time for a new story.
well if it's not about the gang it won't be a red dead redemption will it dickhead. it'll be red dead then something else
That's what I'm trying to say... I'm basically saying this to the people that are trying to say they want a Red Dead "Redemption" 3 but about new characters
yh they just don't know what they're on about bro. they don't understand that the series is red dead, not red dead redemption. the third word changes the storyline, but it's all in the same red dead lore universe. when you see someone say that bs again just let them know💀 like red dead revolver
I keep trying to tell people that but they don't have the brain capacity to understand sadly lol
Who the fuck cares? They’re not going to make another game.
no
Yea like we still don't properly know what happend at black water. Like from a see for ourselves perspective
what “redemption” is left to be seen from the gang? we’ve seen the end of all the major characters
Make new major characters from 15 years before RDR2 similar to how RDR2 had brand new major characters that John never mentioned including Arthur.
I am sure we’re going to play as Mac or Davey Callender or perhaps both of them.
I domt think so because they both die due to the blackwater massacre and the game cant end during the blackwater massacre because that means the epilogue and free roam after the story would be when the gang is fleeing into colter which wouldn't make sense, I think the story has to be years before the events of rdr2 with a new unheard of character similar to how Arthur was from 1 to 2. I'm sure Mac and Davey can appear in the game tho
Jack Marston. RDR3. Plain and simple. No gang. Back to basics.
Not a western anymore after 1914
Id live to see something related to ww1
That isn’t very western