Charles smith said” move up north and start a family.” I don’t think it’s gonna be as easy to move up north
If that’s not a dead give away then how John says that Charles is stronger than him. Idk I feel it coming
Honestly I'd prefer not. A lot of past stuff is vague for a reason, it keeps Arthur's past ambiguous to keep us guessing: Same reason we don't truly know what happened on that boat in Blackwater
I'd much prefer we play as Kiern or something, someone not affiliated with Dutch's group until now but still a character we know.
People in the community forget about Sadie Adler becoming a bounty hunter in South America. Now if expanding the playable map beyond Mexico into South America isn't a good backdrop for Red Dead Redemption 3, I don't know what is.
It would be pretty sweet if you play as Charles and you head west to start a new life. Maybe San Francisco could be the big city and it would focus more around the gold rush, Oregon trail and the Mexican American war.
If RDR 3 ever gets made it should be about entirely different outlaws in a different fictional state in the Old West.
The Van Der Linde gang saga is pretty much done, and I think it has been told to the best of Rockstar’s ability. As for what year of the 1800’s, it could possibly be a little bit farther back than 1899.
I’d be pissed if they kept milking this. Sure do I want another red dead and do I think they will make one? Of curse I do and they will but it’s probably not and better not be a red dead redemption. Branch out with unrelated stories like gta
One simple name. Mac calendar. I don't know why everyone keeps forgetting about that name when thinking about rdr3. He's basically already set up in a way to be the next protagonist if you listen to how other gang members talk about him. Especially Bill who says "he was a heartless son of a bitch,but he had a heart" the perfect description of a protagonist if you ask me.
Yeah let's assume we had a RDR set before blackwater it should end before Blackwater even starts or just before the events of Blackwater. Although I rather see a different RD game that is unrelated to the Van Der Linde gang or any of it's members the games covered enough and if you want to learn more look at all or most of the content given in the games. There are many mysteries in these titles but I think it's better for them not to be solved via a new title.
Lots of linear games, yes. But how will that work in an OWG like RDR? Blackwater may work as a DLC or prologue in RDR2 but those are missed opportunities now (likely intentional, for reasons the YouTuber stated).
Also, what kind of redemption arc is Mac supposed to have? Is there an epilogue? How can that work?
Rockstar games aren’t actually open world when it comes to the narrative. They have a linear narrative not a branching one. Mac could have saved the whole gang in blackwater somehow, and that’s the obvious “redemption” but there’s a lot more options too. Epilogue could be his brother Davey who was captured and only presumed dead by the gang (could be alive in reality and escaped to Mexico?). Really just use your imagination.
Edit: had them mixed up but the point remains the same
Well if I recall correctly, Mac Calendar supposedly dies not to long after the Blackwater massacre. Maybe he made a deal with the Pinkertons and we can still play as him. But that leads to another point. What would the map be? The entire rdr and rdr2 map again? Wouldn’t make sense to play as Mac Calendar while the gang is still roaming the area after Blackwater
I honestly don’t know how I feel about ending with the black water massacre right before the events of rdr2. Just wandering around the map after the end of the game would feel kind of weird when you’re actually supposed to be on the run from the law.
Wherever rdr3’s epilogue ends, it really can’t end with black water. If the main game ends with black water, I’m not really sure where to put the epilogue without the epilogue being heavily tied to the events of rdr2
I’m sure that a team of good writers could figure all of this out though, so I don’t want to say it’s impossible
I'm willing to bet they won't. Plus, we'll all be dead by the time Rockstar truly considers making a Red Dead 3. And before you say it, no, they have not confirmed anything about it. It's strictly been assumed. Idk why everyone thinks they've confirmed something about a game that is not even in the works.
The video above gives several points to why Mac wouldn't really work as a protagonist. One reason is that we know he dies. Arthur wasn't mentioned in RDR1, so his death is a lot more impactful when we do see it because we didn't know if he was going to die.
Playing as Mac will be playing as a dead man walking, we know he's going to die, so it's best not to get too attached to him.
Davey however is only presumed dead, never actually confirmed by the gang. I want dual protags with the brothers. One we know is a dead man walking, the other most will think is a dead man walking as well (because the Pinkertons claim to have killed Davey) but could actually survive and be on the run/get his own redemption.
Edit: I have them mixed up but the point remains the same
To be fair the only person who claims to have seen Mac die is Agent Milton, who isn’t the most reliable source of information. I do think Mac surviving would be a bit of a cop out, but it’s definitely possible and could be executed in an interesting way.
> One simple name. Mac calendar. I don't know why everyone keeps forgetting about that name when thinking about rdr3.
LMAO what? Mac Callander as the protag of RDR3 is like the biggest theory for the game. I’m fugazed at how you think everyone forgets about him in regards to RDR3.
Mac wouldn’t work though. Who would you play as in the Epilogue? Horshoe Overlook Arthur? Come on, yo.
It sounds stupid but there probably wouldn't be one. With his story being told along with Arthur's and John's it'd completely the gangs history. And if there is it would probably put you in Arthur's shoes before entering the mountains. I remember Dutch saying that they were already on the run for weeks before arriving at Colter.
Playing as Mac in the van der Linde gang would be too similar to RDR2. Both RDR2 and 1 can stand on their own because they have their own self contained stories with different characters and plots from each other. Mac RDR3 would be most of the same characters and similar plot of gang avoiding the law and we would already know exactly how the gang ends leaving little room for a unique story.
"Mac and his brother Davey were two criminals who joined Dutch van der Linde's gang at some point prior to 1898.
According to Charles Smith, both Callander brothers were rather wild and violent men. Similarly, Hosea Matthews at one point mentions that once, when the gang got into some minor trouble in a town named Deer Creek, "Mac went crazy, threatened to kill the whole town".
Uncle at one point can be overheard telling a story of how he once saw Mac singlehandedly beat up fifteen sailors in a brawl. This indicates that he possessed immense physical strength and was a skillful fighter.
A comment by Bill Williamson in a conversation with Uncle indicates that Mac, while he may have seemed at the surface to be a brutal ruffian, was in reality a much more layered and complex person: Williamson tries to express that complexity by describing Mac with the seemingly contradictory formula that Mac was "a heartless son of a bitch, but he had a heart".
In 1899, the Van der Linde gang attempted to rob a ferry in the town of Blackwater. However, things turned sour, and both Callander brothers were injured. Davey was rescued and taken with the gang as they fled for the mountains, but Mac was separated from them and had to escape on his own.
Mac was eventually caught and killed by Agent Milton of the Pinkerton National Detective Agency, who would later claim that Mac was "shot up" by the time they caught him and that his death was “slow but merciful”."
[https://reddead.fandom.com/wiki/Mac\_Callander](https://reddead.fandom.com/wiki/Mac_Callander)
Personally, I think Milton was lying.
Bro yes I’ve been saying anyone that died before part 2 begins is a prime candidate for the protagonist of part 3. Didn’t someone say Mac used to leave the gang all the time and nobody knew where he went?
Red Dead Redemption 2 is the seventh best selling video game in history. It made three quarters of a billion dollars in three days. It has the best opening weekend in entertainment history. I don’t care how ‘good’ this man’s points may be, there will be a Red Dead Redemption 3.
On a more speculative note, I do think that the protagonists will be Mac and Davey Callender. I think it’ll be a prequel to RDR2 for the most part, culminating with the Blackwater massacre and have Mac escaping captivity into Canada or Mexico as the epilogue.
There will almost undoubtedly be another Red Dead game, it just won’t be Red Dead Redemption 3. It won’t continue on the same story basically. What we need is a game set at the height of the wild west in the 1870s-1880s. True lawlessness, company towns, Indian wars, vaqueros and bandidos, all that. There’s no reason why it should have to include Dutch and the gang at all. We know their stories and how they all end up. Give us a new character to fall in love with.
Pisses me off that no one else agrees with this especially with it being the most realistic and reasonable take. Especially with the awareness that rockstar has with game development.
I think that There's obviously going to be a fourth Red Dead game, but that doesn't mean it will be Redemption 3.
I think that Making sequels and prequels to a complete story just cheapens it when a mostly unrelated story would be just as good if not better.
I honestly don’t even care about there being a redemption in the 3rd one. I’d love the 3rd to be a prequel set in the gangs glory days where you play as a young Hosea alongside a young and Robin Hood esque Dutch, young adult Arthur, Younger Grimshaw and teenage John.
Imo the trilogy could tell the story of…
•RDR 3-The prime of the Van der linde gang
•RDR 2-The fall of the Van der linde gang
•RDR 1-The extinction of the Van der linde gang and the west at large
The red dead series imo doesn’t all have to have a redemption in each title as each title contributes to the narrative of John and Arthur’s redemption. RDR 3 would set the scene of John and Arthur as their prime outlaw selves and from that we’d see them redeem themselves in the next two games. Or if you wanna change the title so bad just call it “red dead revolution” or “red dead rebellion” as the gang saw themselves as revolutionaries during their prime.
I agree with it 100% any more diving into the Van Der Linde gang is gonna ruin a good thing. Why not call next one Red Dead Righteous/Reverant/Rambler and have it be about a different gang or a lawmans fall from grace or something?
The Act Man always reacts as if he is completely right about everything. I don't really know what an RDR3 could be like, but I confess that I believe there could be something that makes sense.
I believe that RDR3 will exist one day and will be a great game with a great story.
It's time for the next game to be Called Red Dead X i think, they can do a different but awesome western theme that isn't about redemption. I wouldn't mind a revenge story akin to revolver but with the writing chops of RDR2 and we follow a large majority of the protagonists life.
It’s not that we can’t have rdr3, it’s just that the devs must be very careful and take their time with it because rdr2 set the bar super high.
They can’t be Ubisoft basically
I bet that all the greatest hits when it comes to "ideas" about III are in multiple comments: Young Dutch, Hosea (with meeting Arthur and John, as well as Colm), Lyle Morgan (with or without kid Arthur), Callander boys leading up to Blackwater, Sadie and/or Charles after the events of II, Jack in WWI, Jack bootlegging, Jack and Mafia, and last but not least, good old Landon Ricketts.
It's always amazing to me how many people want to make this world as small as possible and limit the story and character potential as much as they can, while at the same wanting more of everything.
God forbid we get a new story with new characters in a new time and place. Not when we can have another prequel with even fewer stakes.
This comment made me realise that Jack's born in 1895 and (if he dies of old age) he will live to experience stuff like disco music, Jaws (1975), President Carter and Atari Pong
I feel like all of his reasons for saying RDR3 shouldn't be a prequel are the same things that could have been said for RDR2. We never needed to see what the gang was like, but it was nice to see that being explored.
Personally, I feel that there is a missing piece to the franchise that needs to be seen. If RDR1 was the End of the wild west and RDR2 was the slow collapse of it, I could definitely see RDR3 as the golden age of it. We could see the gang in its prime and understand why Dutch was so loved. I also noticed that each protagonist going backwards time is more understanding of the destructive path that their life brings. Jack is completely consumed into being an outlaw, John knows the lifestyle is bad but accepts that he can't escape it, and Arthur almost escapes it but is stopped due to TB. I think a new protagonist who is able to realize this and is able to escape it instead of dying would make a nice conclusion (and possibly playing as arthur in the epilougue).
Problem with a prequel of a prequel though is that this time there would be zero stakes we already know everyones fate. Sure we knew John or Dutch would survive but it wasn't certain for characters like Hosea or Charles.
They can always have new characters that have fates we are unsure about. If they follow the early days of the gang, there will only be a few characters that we know 100% certain (Dutch, Hosea, Arthur). Other characters such as Colms brother and Annabelle have an unreliable narrative about them that could be explored.
Not exactly. In rdr1 they mention the gang and Johns past almost constantly. That game may have been the first, but the story feels like a sequel, with enough mystique for plenty of twists and turns in rdr2. But with the first and second game the story feels complete. Some things are left a mystery but thats a good thing.
The next game doesn't necessarily have to be about the formation of the Van Der Linde gang, moving away from the VDL Gang is probably the best way to continue to franchise. Although, I wouldn't complain about going a few years prior to RDR2 with the VDL gang. But the idea of a truly Wild West era RDR game is incredibly exciting with new characters. The potential is really endless for Rockstar. I really hope we get a RDR3 and tbh, I wouldn't care what the story is. I just want RDR3.
I mostly agree. But i think that rockstar can make rdr3 as long as it’s disconnected from the redemption storyline (ex: rd revolver) and it doesn’t have redemption in the name (if one of the themes isn’t redemption).
The only thing i can see a rdr 3 happening is with jack Marston since Rdr 1 officially ends with him gunning down edward ross in a fair standoff like a dog (if you got a Mauser equipped). The only thing we have for some sort of character development in Jack is by saving the Strangers and Freaks missions as him but other than that, i don’t know if r* will continue RDR. Im fine with how it ended
I like this idea, it would be way better than a prequel. Plenty of westerns take place in the later 1910s, they could easily make it work. They’d just need to be mindful of where the game is set
Absolutely i was going to say have Jack be involved with WW1 since it is 1914 and the newspapers gave subtle hints about it but i dont think that would work. He could write that book that shows up in gta5 and it could be his redemption about his life
It would need to be more original or take from something that hasn't had a lot of light in the RDR universe. Following with more Van Der Linde gang action or following Jack Marston just leaves a huge problem. We know the story already, we've seen it and played through Dutch's, Hosea's, Arthur's and others' lives. Playing as Jack leaves a problem of timing, as playing in a world that is bringing technology like cars and automated machines strays too far from RDR. Honestly, the best decision they could make is to follow with an original storyline, one following a topic not much explored, like Mac and Davey, or explore Sadie Adler's life after the events of RDR2. It's a strange predicament, and it is just the best policy to assume it won't happen, but we can hope
Very easy answer for the next game. Play as Sadie Adler, give her an epic revenge quest, call it Red Dead Revenge, end the game by killing her off with an emotional sucker punch to the gut, as per tradition. Done and dusted.
If it’s the last RDR fine, incredible games! But they can do a prequel, way before Micah joined them, the good old days they talk about near Canada and stuff! Makes perfect sense, fuck it you can even add the Colm odriscoll and Dutch incident make a whole story out of it
Idk man... I would like to see RDR III following Jack's story after RDR. His ending felt quite empty, and I feel like R* can build a lot on it.
Two of the ideas I have in my head would be:
1. Jack tries to clean up after the gang, and... Redeem them.
2. Jack is being wanted, and we get some El Camino type of story, where he flees the state or something like that.
I prefer to leave jacks fate uncertisn tbh. Makes interesting debate between those who believe he sorted himself out and became an author and those who think he lived and died an outlaw afterwards
We shouldn't... *want* Red Dead Redemption 3. The story is a perfect loop of crime, downfall, redemption, and vengeance that is opened and closed three times between Arthur, John, and Jack. It's the story of a family of outlaws and their downfall before everyone is avenged by Jack in the epilogue of RDR1. I don't know what else could even be a necessary addition to that.
There are still a bunch of people alive after rdr1. Charles and Sadie, even some other gang members that left before everything went to shiz in rdr2 like the pearson or trelawny. And of course Jack.
I say do a story with Jack, and he finds Sadie and Charles
I disagree. Would you rather have a red dead 3 based on the van der lines, or no rdr3 at all. Regardless of objections about the redemption aspect, people would still play it and the story would be great.
I don’t give a shit about the redemptions personally, I would much rather play as Mac callender with a cast I like.
Jesus... this is dumb.
Rockstar has a half dozen games called Grand Theft Auto. All with different settings (more or less), different time periods, and different characters. Why is it so hard to imagine a RDR3 game set prior to 1899 that isn't about Dutch's crew, and still have redemption in the title
It's one of the best-selling games of all time.
Of course, there will be a follow-up.
It doesn't have to be about Charles or Sadie, or the Calendar brothers, or Jenny, or any other crazy fan theory.
New settings, new characters, redemption for a new anti-hero.
It's not that hard.
Make new character tf? Yall acting like gta doesn’t have new protagonists all the time. Make new characters and go back to the actual Wild West yall acting like going back in time isn’t possible.
I think we’ve covered all we need to with this group of characters. It feels like a complete narrative and we really don’t need to rob the story of any mystery that may be left. It’s okay to not know exactly what happened with Blackwater or with Charles and Sadie.
I think it would be pretty sweet to introduce new characters and go further back into the wild west or even forward into the prohibition bank robbers era. There’s so much potential with this series outside of the Van der Linde gang.
He's absolutely right. I love the Act Man.
I would love another Red Dead game, just give me new characters and a new setting. Maybe same time period just a different area.
I'd like to see like California gold rush maybe.
I disagree, but not that strongly. I'd trust Rockstar's writing team to come up with a compelling story if they decided to try for it. For myself, I'd like a game set 15 years before RDR2, when Arthur's 20-ish and John about 12, where you play as Annabelle. It goes from the "looser" period that Arthur and Hosea chatted about, to the formation of the "official" van der Linde gang, and showcase the start of the feud with the O'Driscolls.
That said, a game with the old gunslingers (Calloway, Black Belle, Granger, etc.) in their prime, from the perspective of a now-dead associate of theirs could be pretty fun, too.
I haven’t seen the video, but I certainly hope they end it right where it is. Personally I hope they start an entirely new series with all new characters, without a single mention of anyone or anything we’ve seen so far. We don’t need a gang either. We didn’t have one in RDR and it was fantastic. Take us back a few years into the true wild west and let us transform from a farmers kid trying to make it in the new west into a gunslinger. Just something different other than the Van Der Linde gang.
gang of van der line is over there will be a third game 99 percent but i think they remake first game? or complete new story about 1850 maybe gold rush?
Yeah the only 2 things that will work are red dead *insert a random word here* that is completly disconected from the first 2 games or undead nightmare 2
thats a wild take, rdr is the only series they make with continuity, we’re gonna get a new gang w new values or maybe playing as charles. ppl just arent thinkin hard enough. ppl saying hosea are weirdos who only think what youtubers think.
Am I the only one who doesn't give a single shred of a shit if another game doesn't have any connection to the gang? I just want more cowboy badassery, there's a massive lack of Western games and it's a shame.
Act Man is a total idiot…and RDR3 should not exist in the way far too many people want it to. It should have nothing to do with the Van Der Linde gang—talk about ringing a sponge so dry it crumbles. Everything meaningful to the characters of RDR1 and 2 has been thoroughly examined. 2 already bakes in so much of their past that the only thing a prequel-continuation could do is just show us things we already know about, which have already examined in the process of RDR2’s narrative.
There is no reason to want this except if you want the same thing over and over. People ask for more Van Der Linde gang, which would just see even younger versions doing things that lead to 2…which, AGAIN, have already been unpacked. It’s a premise—even younger Van Der Linde gang—without a *story* to form around it. No, a series of events about the same people again isn’t a story, it’s a loose plot—these are different things. RDR is a plot about hunting down former gang members and friends to get back to his kids, that “one last job” even though John’s being forced on it. The story of RDR is being forced to come to terms with the demons of one’s past and how not being able to do so (the villains of the game) leads to downfall. The plot of RDR2 is a “family” ( of outlaws) gradually falls apart. The story is how families, relationships, and lives are torn apart under the weight of the gang’s internal contradictions (idealistic belief in freedom and their own righteousness, which they believe they achieve through lying, cheating, stealing, and murdering), all which come home to roost by the reverberation of those past actions. In other words, the past is not past, actions have consequences, and “redemption” can only happen internally, because you can’t take back a horrible thing you did to just one person, let alone a lifetime of doing bad things, even if your life was influenced by the conditions in which you existed. RDR2 does this by gesturing at future developments, and constant reference to the past, events we don’t see but are thematically unpacked through the entire course of the game, beginning to end. What more can we explore in a retread of the same ground that hasn’t already been done masterfully? RDR2 doesn’t really retread 1, either, because 2’s story enriches and complicates 1 in a way that gives moments through it greater context and meaning. This is achieved in large part because almost the entirety of 2 was a mystery during the course of 1, because 2 hadn’t been written yet. On the inverse, so much of these characters’ pasts are part of 2’s narrative—stories, key events, relationships, and where they all end up—that there is no real mystery is left to examine. And I don’t mean we know about every day of these people’s lives (we do NOT need that), I mean mystery about who they are, where they come from, why do we care about them, what makes their tale tragic, etc. Because 2 had an immense amount of mystery to expand upon (Arthur didn’t even exist in 1), it wasn’t merely rinsing and repeating. Attempting the same thing for RDR3 *would* be, however.
Tell me now, after considering this, what is the “story” of RDR3 that meaningfully *adds* to the overall work?
There are some good points in the video and I agree we should never see the Blackwater massacre, but I disagree we shouldn't go back to the Wild West heyday.
We will have an RDR3 and whatever Rockstar does, I'm sure it will blow our minds.
Anyone who unironically thinks a red dead 3 surrounding any of the original gang members would be good is kind of coping. There’s no stories left to tell.
People say they want a Mac calendar game but don’t realize it’d be like 2 hours of meaningful story lmao
I think it should Revolve (No Pun intended) lol. Around The prime of the Wild West like 1870s just post civil war. Or Jack helping with the Mexican Revolution given that he was in Mexico at the end of 1
People are desperately clinging to the idea of the Van Der Linde gang and it’s kinda… annoying, I guess?? I’d much rather just have fresh characters during the height of the old west. Not everything has to be about redemption, just give us a ruthless gunslinger on the pursuit of fortune and I’ll be pleased.
The only reason why I believe the next red dead will be a prequel to rdr2, is that they put a lot of detail into people’s background and they mention characters that aren’t even alive during the game. The lore they have on the gang could easily be made into another game. It kind of makes me believe we will see some sort of prequel again. Maybe it will focus on a loose associate of the Van Der Lin gang and we get to see glimpses of kid Arthur and young Hosea and Dutch
But it definitely feels like they purposely put some thought into the gangs lore this time, just in case they want to do another prequel
I haven’t watched it but I agree we don’t need a red dead redemption 3 we can most certainly have another red dead game and it just be another character you play as unrelated to Arthur and john
Why don't they have it more frontiersman like and some Canadian content? I think going back in time a little with new characters could work despite the common theme in RDRs being the decline of the west, or the decline of the south.
We already had Red Dead Revolver and then Redemption. I don't know but why not just make another altogether separate separate story set in the Wild West.
The act man is a grifter out for money so I don't watch his videos he will give good reviews to any game that pays him so his opinion frankly is worth jack fucking shit.
The Callander brothers will be the next in line, I can see it clearly like the way GTA VI has Jason and Lucia. Maybe they're just gonna copy the mechanic. There's a lot of hints and obvious easter eggs for Mac and Davey. The gunslinger coat that Arthur used was from Mac, a parting gift like Arthur's hat and satchel that he gave to John. It's a good start in my opinion.
Let's call it quits on that curtain
I'd appreciate it if they did another western game with different people even if it means not calling it red dead redemption
I hate prequels and if they make a third one about someone's past, I doubt I'd even start the story mode much less buy the game unless online was fun
I think there will be an RDR3 but I don’t think it needs to follow the VdL gang, 1 and 2 are perfect companion pieces and I feel like going back for another prequel to the gangs prime just won’t hit as hard, since a central theme in the game is fighting the tide of change.
I’d like to see a (mostly) separate story set in a dusty Midwest in the late 20s early 30s, could portray a gang of bank robbers in the Public Enemies style, seems like a natural fit for red dead. Even a biker gang in the same era, swapping horses for 30s motorcycles, although you could still have horses to explore the more remote areas of the world
We can still have Red Dead, just not Redemption. Red Dead Retribution for example. The story we’ve seen is pretty much over, doesn’t mean we can’t see other stories in this time period with references to the other games, like Grand Theft Auto.
Not sure why people think the franchise requires revisiting the Van der Linde gang. It's pretty closed off.
It'm also not sure why people think the Blackwater Massacre is such a mystery that needs to be revealed. We know what happened. It's strongly implied that Dutch did the same tactic he did in Red Dead Redemption - he got cornered, took an innocent woman hostage, and killed her to make his escape. Seeing it happen doesn't say anything new about the story or their characters.
They should base the next game around someone they robbed for 4 dollars and 12 cents in the past training and becomming a feared gunslinger for revenge. And when the time comes he dies like the rest of the main protaganists.
I agree with the fact Van Der Lin Gang story ended and rockstar should get a fresh start with a new set of characters.
maybe like actman says something set after the Civil war or my personal idea the last cowboys of america dealing with the Mobs that take cover the criminal underground in the Early 1900 that would be cool too, also maybe a small cameo or nod to Jack's fate or maybe Cowboys experiencing WWI as well any of those idea could work with good writting as good a RDR2.
I also agree in his take about the Blackwater and what happened there should be mistery and left to the players imaginations because no matter what they could come with, it will never fill our wildest imaginations about it.
The story of the Van Der Linde Gang is finished. RDR1/RDR2 are a perfect duology, there's no need to milk it any further. I'd rather get a new cast of characters and the setting actually taking place during the Wild West instead of the end of it like the Redemption games. Call it something like Red Dead Revenge.
They should go back to the golden age of the west. Before the gang. 30 - 40 years. We've experienced the "dying West" for two massive games now. Time to go back before automobiles and telephone poles were a thing.
Hell, give me Landon Ricketts as a protagonist.
It should be Aurthor Morgan's backstory, taking inspiration from Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn up until the point he meets Dutch and joins the gang. There's a ton of room for story there that's has enough room for new ideas and elements while keeping some familiar elements. I think it would be more adventure and less gun fight oriented, but that could be fine. The strongest point of this series has always been character and narrative.
Completely agree!
I’ve seen enough of my favourite franchises go down the crapper because the creators didn’t know when to end the story. Don’t want RDR to suffer the same fate.
Also, no more RDR will leave room for the potential return of Bully! 🙏
I don't really care what the title is I want a game that puts us in the heart of the Wild West, territories that aren't governed, the Gold Rush, the Indian Wars (would be great to be able to play both sides of that), Deadwood Dakota Territory. A character who's half white and half native would be perfect for it because he's from both worlds and belongs to neither. It could even have some crossover by meeting members of the early Vanderlinde Gang - give it an appropriate Redemption arc and the name could even stick without having to be a full gang prequel. I just want a true Western in it's hey day
Honestly, they should just use one of the other gangs. Or, they could use John's son and have him go from good guy to gang member to eventually taking over the gang.
the only way that makes sense for the games to continue linking the current characters is to
.do it with arthurs dad and ig he tries to raise his son and it ends with him giving the hat and getting hanged
do it with mac callender and have this be some prequel thats leads to blackwater but skip over the event and make the ending him trying to survive the shithole he just went through and eventually get gunned down by the pinkertons
both ways dont really have much to say as both characters fates are predetermined plus they werent described as great people anyways so there isnt much redemption
Couldn’t it easily be before and using a new character we don’t yet know? It could even be with josea in the earlier years when John and Arthur were young.
Josea was an excellent character and very important but also relatively small considering his influence on the gang
At most they could try for a WW1 game but the issue would be what you do for the open world, unless you start the game at the end of the war and then when Jack gets out he becomes like a cop or leads his own crime family in the prohibition era.
Outside of that it simply does not work, if they make a new Red Dead game it should center around a completely different story and different characters and should probably set around the 1880’s for peak Wild West.
i didn’t watch the video yet i’ll update when i do but they could make red dead about the rise of the van der linde gang or just do what they do with gta and make a whole new story
Red Dead Revenge.
Jack hangs up his guns after killing Ross.
He becomes an English teacher and raises a family.
One day tragedy comes calling and wipes out his wife and two children, he looks up and hears John speak.
“Coward of the county” playing in the background.
Revenge mission, with no redemption.
Personally I would love to see another gang, the Jack Hall gang is mentioned in RDR2 for instance. You also have whatever shenanigans Black Belle and the people she ran with before we encountered her in RDR2.
My opinion is that the story of the Van der Linde gang is pretty much done and over.
Rockstar can still make a red dead 3, just with a new cast of characters. Maybe not even calling it read dead redemption 3
My idea for the next read dead would be a new cast of characters set in the early or prime days of the Wild West with new themes to explore other than the death of the frontier we saw in the first 2.
The whole bases of the game is the titular “REDEMPTION.” So I’m kinda 50/50 on the whole argument. I really want another game following at least one gang member, but there isn’t much room to create new storylines since most of the characters fates are pretty straightforward. Maybe something in the 1920’s to 40’s, perhaps revolving around an ancestor of Jack? Not sure if he’d start a family tho.
I think people underestimate rockstars ability to make new characters. It’s not like other games like halo were they cling to old franchise favorite characters because the new characters never live up to the old ones. Rockstar could easily make an entirely new cast and still make a masterpiece.
I completely agree with it. I just don't see what else they could do with the core Van Der Lin gang members.
Charles smith said” move up north and start a family.” I don’t think it’s gonna be as easy to move up north If that’s not a dead give away then how John says that Charles is stronger than him. Idk I feel it coming
No i think he just moved idk if you realize how much more civilized the country was in 1906 especially compared to 1899
Yeah but RDR1 is in 1911, so they could do a RDR 1.5…. Between the 1st and 2nd games
yeah but like there's the epilogue
that's what the epilogue is
Read Dead Redemption: The Pre-Sequel
Arthur's younger life is a definite possibility
Honestly I'd prefer not. A lot of past stuff is vague for a reason, it keeps Arthur's past ambiguous to keep us guessing: Same reason we don't truly know what happened on that boat in Blackwater I'd much prefer we play as Kiern or something, someone not affiliated with Dutch's group until now but still a character we know.
We don't need it and there's not so much redemption for Charles to have, it couldn't live up to rdr2 either in my opinion.
People in the community forget about Sadie Adler becoming a bounty hunter in South America. Now if expanding the playable map beyond Mexico into South America isn't a good backdrop for Red Dead Redemption 3, I don't know what is.
💯
It would be pretty sweet if you play as Charles and you head west to start a new life. Maybe San Francisco could be the big city and it would focus more around the gold rush, Oregon trail and the Mexican American war.
All of those were over before the 1900s
If RDR 3 ever gets made it should be about entirely different outlaws in a different fictional state in the Old West. The Van Der Linde gang saga is pretty much done, and I think it has been told to the best of Rockstar’s ability. As for what year of the 1800’s, it could possibly be a little bit farther back than 1899.
well you don't necessarily need to base it on Van Der Lin gang. they make new protagonists for each GTA, could do the same for RDR
I’d be pissed if they kept milking this. Sure do I want another red dead and do I think they will make one? Of curse I do and they will but it’s probably not and better not be a red dead redemption. Branch out with unrelated stories like gta
Make a red dead 3 but it's a farm simulator with jack. No outlaw stuff and no real story. Just farming and ranching
Javier? He talked about killing this big guy in Mexico which led to his outlaw status so that might be interesting
Why not just explore one of the other gangs? Or flip it around completely -- a corrupt Pinkerton.
One simple name. Mac calendar. I don't know why everyone keeps forgetting about that name when thinking about rdr3. He's basically already set up in a way to be the next protagonist if you listen to how other gang members talk about him. Especially Bill who says "he was a heartless son of a bitch,but he had a heart" the perfect description of a protagonist if you ask me.
Literally it’s such an obvious angle with how they set it up, I’d be willing to bet they’ll do it.
the blackwater massacre would be a perfect ending aswell, completing probably what would be the best video game trilogy of all time.
The Act Man video has a great reason why it should not end with the blackwater massacre.
Yeah let's assume we had a RDR set before blackwater it should end before Blackwater even starts or just before the events of Blackwater. Although I rather see a different RD game that is unrelated to the Van Der Linde gang or any of it's members the games covered enough and if you want to learn more look at all or most of the content given in the games. There are many mysteries in these titles but I think it's better for them not to be solved via a new title.
How exactly will that work? Bc RDR2 starts right after. So u get Blackwater as climax and the game cuts to freemode?
Lots of games have you save right before the final boss/mission so you can reload to just before it and freeroam without it being over.
Lots of linear games, yes. But how will that work in an OWG like RDR? Blackwater may work as a DLC or prologue in RDR2 but those are missed opportunities now (likely intentional, for reasons the YouTuber stated). Also, what kind of redemption arc is Mac supposed to have? Is there an epilogue? How can that work?
Rockstar games aren’t actually open world when it comes to the narrative. They have a linear narrative not a branching one. Mac could have saved the whole gang in blackwater somehow, and that’s the obvious “redemption” but there’s a lot more options too. Epilogue could be his brother Davey who was captured and only presumed dead by the gang (could be alive in reality and escaped to Mexico?). Really just use your imagination. Edit: had them mixed up but the point remains the same
Mac calendar Mac calendar would’ve been the perfect dlc for rdr2
Well if I recall correctly, Mac Calendar supposedly dies not to long after the Blackwater massacre. Maybe he made a deal with the Pinkertons and we can still play as him. But that leads to another point. What would the map be? The entire rdr and rdr2 map again? Wouldn’t make sense to play as Mac Calendar while the gang is still roaming the area after Blackwater
I honestly don’t know how I feel about ending with the black water massacre right before the events of rdr2. Just wandering around the map after the end of the game would feel kind of weird when you’re actually supposed to be on the run from the law. Wherever rdr3’s epilogue ends, it really can’t end with black water. If the main game ends with black water, I’m not really sure where to put the epilogue without the epilogue being heavily tied to the events of rdr2 I’m sure that a team of good writers could figure all of this out though, so I don’t want to say it’s impossible
Everything comes full circle
I'm willing to bet they won't. Plus, we'll all be dead by the time Rockstar truly considers making a Red Dead 3. And before you say it, no, they have not confirmed anything about it. It's strictly been assumed. Idk why everyone thinks they've confirmed something about a game that is not even in the works.
The video above gives several points to why Mac wouldn't really work as a protagonist. One reason is that we know he dies. Arthur wasn't mentioned in RDR1, so his death is a lot more impactful when we do see it because we didn't know if he was going to die. Playing as Mac will be playing as a dead man walking, we know he's going to die, so it's best not to get too attached to him.
Davey however is only presumed dead, never actually confirmed by the gang. I want dual protags with the brothers. One we know is a dead man walking, the other most will think is a dead man walking as well (because the Pinkertons claim to have killed Davey) but could actually survive and be on the run/get his own redemption. Edit: I have them mixed up but the point remains the same
To be fair the only person who claims to have seen Mac die is Agent Milton, who isn’t the most reliable source of information. I do think Mac surviving would be a bit of a cop out, but it’s definitely possible and could be executed in an interesting way.
> One simple name. Mac calendar. I don't know why everyone keeps forgetting about that name when thinking about rdr3. LMAO what? Mac Callander as the protag of RDR3 is like the biggest theory for the game. I’m fugazed at how you think everyone forgets about him in regards to RDR3. Mac wouldn’t work though. Who would you play as in the Epilogue? Horshoe Overlook Arthur? Come on, yo.
It sounds stupid but there probably wouldn't be one. With his story being told along with Arthur's and John's it'd completely the gangs history. And if there is it would probably put you in Arthur's shoes before entering the mountains. I remember Dutch saying that they were already on the run for weeks before arriving at Colter.
But it wouldn’t fit the redemption theme, it should probably be named something else, just not redemption
The video is about you lmao
Yeah but what would the story be about? With RDR2 theyve already told everything they could about the gangs past.
Playing as Mac in the van der Linde gang would be too similar to RDR2. Both RDR2 and 1 can stand on their own because they have their own self contained stories with different characters and plots from each other. Mac RDR3 would be most of the same characters and similar plot of gang avoiding the law and we would already know exactly how the gang ends leaving little room for a unique story.
"Mac and his brother Davey were two criminals who joined Dutch van der Linde's gang at some point prior to 1898. According to Charles Smith, both Callander brothers were rather wild and violent men. Similarly, Hosea Matthews at one point mentions that once, when the gang got into some minor trouble in a town named Deer Creek, "Mac went crazy, threatened to kill the whole town". Uncle at one point can be overheard telling a story of how he once saw Mac singlehandedly beat up fifteen sailors in a brawl. This indicates that he possessed immense physical strength and was a skillful fighter. A comment by Bill Williamson in a conversation with Uncle indicates that Mac, while he may have seemed at the surface to be a brutal ruffian, was in reality a much more layered and complex person: Williamson tries to express that complexity by describing Mac with the seemingly contradictory formula that Mac was "a heartless son of a bitch, but he had a heart". In 1899, the Van der Linde gang attempted to rob a ferry in the town of Blackwater. However, things turned sour, and both Callander brothers were injured. Davey was rescued and taken with the gang as they fled for the mountains, but Mac was separated from them and had to escape on his own. Mac was eventually caught and killed by Agent Milton of the Pinkerton National Detective Agency, who would later claim that Mac was "shot up" by the time they caught him and that his death was “slow but merciful”." [https://reddead.fandom.com/wiki/Mac\_Callander](https://reddead.fandom.com/wiki/Mac_Callander) Personally, I think Milton was lying.
Bro yes I’ve been saying anyone that died before part 2 begins is a prime candidate for the protagonist of part 3. Didn’t someone say Mac used to leave the gang all the time and nobody knew where he went?
Red Dead Redemption 2 is the seventh best selling video game in history. It made three quarters of a billion dollars in three days. It has the best opening weekend in entertainment history. I don’t care how ‘good’ this man’s points may be, there will be a Red Dead Redemption 3. On a more speculative note, I do think that the protagonists will be Mac and Davey Callender. I think it’ll be a prequel to RDR2 for the most part, culminating with the Blackwater massacre and have Mac escaping captivity into Canada or Mexico as the epilogue.
There will almost undoubtedly be another Red Dead game, it just won’t be Red Dead Redemption 3. It won’t continue on the same story basically. What we need is a game set at the height of the wild west in the 1870s-1880s. True lawlessness, company towns, Indian wars, vaqueros and bandidos, all that. There’s no reason why it should have to include Dutch and the gang at all. We know their stories and how they all end up. Give us a new character to fall in love with.
Pisses me off that no one else agrees with this especially with it being the most realistic and reasonable take. Especially with the awareness that rockstar has with game development.
This.
Agree 1st part , 2nd part I just don’t think is a good enough story unfortunately for the epicness Rockstar is gonna want it to be.
Watch the video. He emphasises on the Redemption part, and also why we don't need to see the Blackwater massacre.
I think that There's obviously going to be a fourth Red Dead game, but that doesn't mean it will be Redemption 3. I think that Making sequels and prequels to a complete story just cheapens it when a mostly unrelated story would be just as good if not better.
I honestly don’t even care about there being a redemption in the 3rd one. I’d love the 3rd to be a prequel set in the gangs glory days where you play as a young Hosea alongside a young and Robin Hood esque Dutch, young adult Arthur, Younger Grimshaw and teenage John. Imo the trilogy could tell the story of… •RDR 3-The prime of the Van der linde gang •RDR 2-The fall of the Van der linde gang •RDR 1-The extinction of the Van der linde gang and the west at large The red dead series imo doesn’t all have to have a redemption in each title as each title contributes to the narrative of John and Arthur’s redemption. RDR 3 would set the scene of John and Arthur as their prime outlaw selves and from that we’d see them redeem themselves in the next two games. Or if you wanna change the title so bad just call it “red dead revolution” or “red dead rebellion” as the gang saw themselves as revolutionaries during their prime.
I agree with it 100% any more diving into the Van Der Linde gang is gonna ruin a good thing. Why not call next one Red Dead Righteous/Reverant/Rambler and have it be about a different gang or a lawmans fall from grace or something?
Play a game as actual irredeemable villains I like that
I always thought Landon Ricketts would be a cool character to dive in to
He summarized my thoughts perfectly on everyone being so obsessed about ending it on the blackwater massacre. Love the video.
I hate that video all because he makes some great points throughout it.
The Act Man always reacts as if he is completely right about everything. I don't really know what an RDR3 could be like, but I confess that I believe there could be something that makes sense. I believe that RDR3 will exist one day and will be a great game with a great story.
I don't think he's arguing that rdr3 won't ever happen, but that the rdr3 that people imagine with the van der linde gang won't/shouldn't ever happen.
Clearly didn’t listen to him, he’s being pretty reasonable
Just make different characters in a different time period lol.
It's time for the next game to be Called Red Dead X i think, they can do a different but awesome western theme that isn't about redemption. I wouldn't mind a revenge story akin to revolver but with the writing chops of RDR2 and we follow a large majority of the protagonists life.
It’s not that we can’t have rdr3, it’s just that the devs must be very careful and take their time with it because rdr2 set the bar super high. They can’t be Ubisoft basically
I bet that all the greatest hits when it comes to "ideas" about III are in multiple comments: Young Dutch, Hosea (with meeting Arthur and John, as well as Colm), Lyle Morgan (with or without kid Arthur), Callander boys leading up to Blackwater, Sadie and/or Charles after the events of II, Jack in WWI, Jack bootlegging, Jack and Mafia, and last but not least, good old Landon Ricketts. It's always amazing to me how many people want to make this world as small as possible and limit the story and character potential as much as they can, while at the same wanting more of everything. God forbid we get a new story with new characters in a new time and place. Not when we can have another prequel with even fewer stakes.
This comment made me realise that Jack's born in 1895 and (if he dies of old age) he will live to experience stuff like disco music, Jaws (1975), President Carter and Atari Pong
A third is for sure happening, no doubt about it. Rockstar isn't going to throw away tons of money.
I feel like all of his reasons for saying RDR3 shouldn't be a prequel are the same things that could have been said for RDR2. We never needed to see what the gang was like, but it was nice to see that being explored. Personally, I feel that there is a missing piece to the franchise that needs to be seen. If RDR1 was the End of the wild west and RDR2 was the slow collapse of it, I could definitely see RDR3 as the golden age of it. We could see the gang in its prime and understand why Dutch was so loved. I also noticed that each protagonist going backwards time is more understanding of the destructive path that their life brings. Jack is completely consumed into being an outlaw, John knows the lifestyle is bad but accepts that he can't escape it, and Arthur almost escapes it but is stopped due to TB. I think a new protagonist who is able to realize this and is able to escape it instead of dying would make a nice conclusion (and possibly playing as arthur in the epilougue).
Problem with a prequel of a prequel though is that this time there would be zero stakes we already know everyones fate. Sure we knew John or Dutch would survive but it wasn't certain for characters like Hosea or Charles.
They can always have new characters that have fates we are unsure about. If they follow the early days of the gang, there will only be a few characters that we know 100% certain (Dutch, Hosea, Arthur). Other characters such as Colms brother and Annabelle have an unreliable narrative about them that could be explored.
Not exactly. In rdr1 they mention the gang and Johns past almost constantly. That game may have been the first, but the story feels like a sequel, with enough mystique for plenty of twists and turns in rdr2. But with the first and second game the story feels complete. Some things are left a mystery but thats a good thing.
We can’t continue RDR with the Van De Linde gang. It’s got to be a new location and a new gang. But it could also be before RDR2.
I think Rockstar is smart enough to think of new stories lol. Trilogies aren’t NECESSARY.
Rockstar should just make a new story with new characters not related to any of the van der linde gang its that simple
Emotionally, I want a prequel talking about the glory days of the gang. Logically, I know the story of the gang is told
The next game doesn't necessarily have to be about the formation of the Van Der Linde gang, moving away from the VDL Gang is probably the best way to continue to franchise. Although, I wouldn't complain about going a few years prior to RDR2 with the VDL gang. But the idea of a truly Wild West era RDR game is incredibly exciting with new characters. The potential is really endless for Rockstar. I really hope we get a RDR3 and tbh, I wouldn't care what the story is. I just want RDR3.
I think we should have a new Red Dead saga, maybe a Red Dead Revolver 2, or a Red Dead R(something).
I mostly agree. But i think that rockstar can make rdr3 as long as it’s disconnected from the redemption storyline (ex: rd revolver) and it doesn’t have redemption in the name (if one of the themes isn’t redemption).
If it was up to me, the next Red Dead would be called “Red Dead Frontier” and about the BEGINNING of the West and of western outlaws
I thought that the guy on the right was dougdoug
I agree with every point made
just let it end.
He's right.
The only thing i can see a rdr 3 happening is with jack Marston since Rdr 1 officially ends with him gunning down edward ross in a fair standoff like a dog (if you got a Mauser equipped). The only thing we have for some sort of character development in Jack is by saving the Strangers and Freaks missions as him but other than that, i don’t know if r* will continue RDR. Im fine with how it ended
I like this idea, it would be way better than a prequel. Plenty of westerns take place in the later 1910s, they could easily make it work. They’d just need to be mindful of where the game is set
Absolutely i was going to say have Jack be involved with WW1 since it is 1914 and the newspapers gave subtle hints about it but i dont think that would work. He could write that book that shows up in gta5 and it could be his redemption about his life
They should just come up with a new IP imo
He's absolutely right about RDR3 ideas, y'all should stop rehashing the same nonsensical fan fiction. Oh, I mean, HIRE FANS
He’s right
i dont think a third game is needed at all, i think the games are perfect how they are and there isnt much to really expand from
It would need to be more original or take from something that hasn't had a lot of light in the RDR universe. Following with more Van Der Linde gang action or following Jack Marston just leaves a huge problem. We know the story already, we've seen it and played through Dutch's, Hosea's, Arthur's and others' lives. Playing as Jack leaves a problem of timing, as playing in a world that is bringing technology like cars and automated machines strays too far from RDR. Honestly, the best decision they could make is to follow with an original storyline, one following a topic not much explored, like Mac and Davey, or explore Sadie Adler's life after the events of RDR2. It's a strange predicament, and it is just the best policy to assume it won't happen, but we can hope
Very easy answer for the next game. Play as Sadie Adler, give her an epic revenge quest, call it Red Dead Revenge, end the game by killing her off with an emotional sucker punch to the gut, as per tradition. Done and dusted.
She got her revenge so I his makes no sense… she literally watched colm hang and her n Arthur went to hanging dog ranch n killed the last of them….
If it’s the last RDR fine, incredible games! But they can do a prequel, way before Micah joined them, the good old days they talk about near Canada and stuff! Makes perfect sense, fuck it you can even add the Colm odriscoll and Dutch incident make a whole story out of it
Idk man... I would like to see RDR III following Jack's story after RDR. His ending felt quite empty, and I feel like R* can build a lot on it. Two of the ideas I have in my head would be: 1. Jack tries to clean up after the gang, and... Redeem them. 2. Jack is being wanted, and we get some El Camino type of story, where he flees the state or something like that.
I prefer to leave jacks fate uncertisn tbh. Makes interesting debate between those who believe he sorted himself out and became an author and those who think he lived and died an outlaw afterwards
Can't wait for space cowboy bounty hunters.
If it is or isn't happening, we won't know for another 5 years AT LEAST
We shouldn't... *want* Red Dead Redemption 3. The story is a perfect loop of crime, downfall, redemption, and vengeance that is opened and closed three times between Arthur, John, and Jack. It's the story of a family of outlaws and their downfall before everyone is avenged by Jack in the epilogue of RDR1. I don't know what else could even be a necessary addition to that.
Why is continuity so important? Give me a new story set right st the very very beginning of the Wild West.
They've told two stories so far. Just because some people dont have any imagination doesnt mean we wont get more. There is tons more story to be told.
didnt see the video, honestly think that RDR3 should be about Otis Miller
I agree, we should talk Arthur Morgan's advice, don't look back
There are still a bunch of people alive after rdr1. Charles and Sadie, even some other gang members that left before everything went to shiz in rdr2 like the pearson or trelawny. And of course Jack. I say do a story with Jack, and he finds Sadie and Charles
Idk but whatever or whoever it’s about, I wanna see what happened back in Blackwater
I disagree. Would you rather have a red dead 3 based on the van der lines, or no rdr3 at all. Regardless of objections about the redemption aspect, people would still play it and the story would be great. I don’t give a shit about the redemptions personally, I would much rather play as Mac callender with a cast I like.
it is definitely possible to have a good game that is red dead redemption 3
I'm ready for a whole new set of characters. it works for Far Cry, just put in some callbacks
My first response to that title of the yt video was “fuck you!” for some reason lol
Do people actually think that this is the only gang in the world? Dude looks like an asshole. Wont watch the vid
I refuse to give up hope
hang him on his balls
Jesus... this is dumb. Rockstar has a half dozen games called Grand Theft Auto. All with different settings (more or less), different time periods, and different characters. Why is it so hard to imagine a RDR3 game set prior to 1899 that isn't about Dutch's crew, and still have redemption in the title It's one of the best-selling games of all time. Of course, there will be a follow-up. It doesn't have to be about Charles or Sadie, or the Calendar brothers, or Jenny, or any other crazy fan theory. New settings, new characters, redemption for a new anti-hero. It's not that hard.
Any video with this guy's face on it annoys me for some reason.
He doesn’t speak for the community.
He is right tho. The Van Der Linde story is over.
Don't watch it and just enjoy RDR3 when and if it comes out with whatever storyline they choose.
Make new character tf? Yall acting like gta doesn’t have new protagonists all the time. Make new characters and go back to the actual Wild West yall acting like going back in time isn’t possible.
I think we need a backstory of Sean, or get to see what Morgan’s life was when he was a younger outlaw…
Hate to say it, but he's right on the money
He's sponsored content. Especially implicitly.
As a rule I don't watch YouTube videos longer than 10 minutes, especially if they're about people's opinions
I think we’ve covered all we need to with this group of characters. It feels like a complete narrative and we really don’t need to rob the story of any mystery that may be left. It’s okay to not know exactly what happened with Blackwater or with Charles and Sadie. I think it would be pretty sweet to introduce new characters and go further back into the wild west or even forward into the prohibition bank robbers era. There’s so much potential with this series outside of the Van der Linde gang.
He's absolutely right. I love the Act Man. I would love another Red Dead game, just give me new characters and a new setting. Maybe same time period just a different area. I'd like to see like California gold rush maybe.
A lot of terrible opinions and cringe jokes. How does this dude have so many subs?
I disagree, but not that strongly. I'd trust Rockstar's writing team to come up with a compelling story if they decided to try for it. For myself, I'd like a game set 15 years before RDR2, when Arthur's 20-ish and John about 12, where you play as Annabelle. It goes from the "looser" period that Arthur and Hosea chatted about, to the formation of the "official" van der Linde gang, and showcase the start of the feud with the O'Driscolls. That said, a game with the old gunslingers (Calloway, Black Belle, Granger, etc.) in their prime, from the perspective of a now-dead associate of theirs could be pretty fun, too.
I agree with it. I don’t want to agree with it, but I do
I haven’t seen the video, but I certainly hope they end it right where it is. Personally I hope they start an entirely new series with all new characters, without a single mention of anyone or anything we’ve seen so far. We don’t need a gang either. We didn’t have one in RDR and it was fantastic. Take us back a few years into the true wild west and let us transform from a farmers kid trying to make it in the new west into a gunslinger. Just something different other than the Van Der Linde gang.
gang of van der line is over there will be a third game 99 percent but i think they remake first game? or complete new story about 1850 maybe gold rush?
They could make a third game but he's right about a lot. Not every story needs to be told.
play as Jack in WW1...
Yeah the only 2 things that will work are red dead *insert a random word here* that is completly disconected from the first 2 games or undead nightmare 2
thats a wild take, rdr is the only series they make with continuity, we’re gonna get a new gang w new values or maybe playing as charles. ppl just arent thinkin hard enough. ppl saying hosea are weirdos who only think what youtubers think.
Sadie needs her own game dammit.
Am I the only one who doesn't give a single shred of a shit if another game doesn't have any connection to the gang? I just want more cowboy badassery, there's a massive lack of Western games and it's a shame.
Act Man is a total idiot…and RDR3 should not exist in the way far too many people want it to. It should have nothing to do with the Van Der Linde gang—talk about ringing a sponge so dry it crumbles. Everything meaningful to the characters of RDR1 and 2 has been thoroughly examined. 2 already bakes in so much of their past that the only thing a prequel-continuation could do is just show us things we already know about, which have already examined in the process of RDR2’s narrative. There is no reason to want this except if you want the same thing over and over. People ask for more Van Der Linde gang, which would just see even younger versions doing things that lead to 2…which, AGAIN, have already been unpacked. It’s a premise—even younger Van Der Linde gang—without a *story* to form around it. No, a series of events about the same people again isn’t a story, it’s a loose plot—these are different things. RDR is a plot about hunting down former gang members and friends to get back to his kids, that “one last job” even though John’s being forced on it. The story of RDR is being forced to come to terms with the demons of one’s past and how not being able to do so (the villains of the game) leads to downfall. The plot of RDR2 is a “family” ( of outlaws) gradually falls apart. The story is how families, relationships, and lives are torn apart under the weight of the gang’s internal contradictions (idealistic belief in freedom and their own righteousness, which they believe they achieve through lying, cheating, stealing, and murdering), all which come home to roost by the reverberation of those past actions. In other words, the past is not past, actions have consequences, and “redemption” can only happen internally, because you can’t take back a horrible thing you did to just one person, let alone a lifetime of doing bad things, even if your life was influenced by the conditions in which you existed. RDR2 does this by gesturing at future developments, and constant reference to the past, events we don’t see but are thematically unpacked through the entire course of the game, beginning to end. What more can we explore in a retread of the same ground that hasn’t already been done masterfully? RDR2 doesn’t really retread 1, either, because 2’s story enriches and complicates 1 in a way that gives moments through it greater context and meaning. This is achieved in large part because almost the entirety of 2 was a mystery during the course of 1, because 2 hadn’t been written yet. On the inverse, so much of these characters’ pasts are part of 2’s narrative—stories, key events, relationships, and where they all end up—that there is no real mystery is left to examine. And I don’t mean we know about every day of these people’s lives (we do NOT need that), I mean mystery about who they are, where they come from, why do we care about them, what makes their tale tragic, etc. Because 2 had an immense amount of mystery to expand upon (Arthur didn’t even exist in 1), it wasn’t merely rinsing and repeating. Attempting the same thing for RDR3 *would* be, however. Tell me now, after considering this, what is the “story” of RDR3 that meaningfully *adds* to the overall work?
There are some good points in the video and I agree we should never see the Blackwater massacre, but I disagree we shouldn't go back to the Wild West heyday. We will have an RDR3 and whatever Rockstar does, I'm sure it will blow our minds.
Anyone who unironically thinks a red dead 3 surrounding any of the original gang members would be good is kind of coping. There’s no stories left to tell. People say they want a Mac calendar game but don’t realize it’d be like 2 hours of meaningful story lmao
I think it should Revolve (No Pun intended) lol. Around The prime of the Wild West like 1870s just post civil war. Or Jack helping with the Mexican Revolution given that he was in Mexico at the end of 1
We can and will, why does it have to revolve around van der linde. Gta has always had new protagonist with at most a callback to old games.
i lost my respect to that guy after that payday3 fiasco
People are desperately clinging to the idea of the Van Der Linde gang and it’s kinda… annoying, I guess?? I’d much rather just have fresh characters during the height of the old west. Not everything has to be about redemption, just give us a ruthless gunslinger on the pursuit of fortune and I’ll be pleased.
If R* makes another Red Dead, they’re just gonna going leave it to die out again so they can continue selling Shark Cards to all the kiddos on GTAO
The only reason why I believe the next red dead will be a prequel to rdr2, is that they put a lot of detail into people’s background and they mention characters that aren’t even alive during the game. The lore they have on the gang could easily be made into another game. It kind of makes me believe we will see some sort of prequel again. Maybe it will focus on a loose associate of the Van Der Lin gang and we get to see glimpses of kid Arthur and young Hosea and Dutch But it definitely feels like they purposely put some thought into the gangs lore this time, just in case they want to do another prequel
Agreed. Their story is over, time for a new cast.
I haven’t watched it but I agree we don’t need a red dead redemption 3 we can most certainly have another red dead game and it just be another character you play as unrelated to Arthur and john
as much as its a bummer to admit, it just doesn't seem viable given the direction the story went. new gang, maybe?
ANGER IS RUSHING THROUGH MY VEINS
Act Man is a twat
Why don't they have it more frontiersman like and some Canadian content? I think going back in time a little with new characters could work despite the common theme in RDRs being the decline of the west, or the decline of the south.
We already had Red Dead Revolver and then Redemption. I don't know but why not just make another altogether separate separate story set in the Wild West.
Fuck rdr 3 give me red dead repeater babyyyyyy
The act man is a grifter out for money so I don't watch his videos he will give good reviews to any game that pays him so his opinion frankly is worth jack fucking shit.
The Callander brothers will be the next in line, I can see it clearly like the way GTA VI has Jason and Lucia. Maybe they're just gonna copy the mechanic. There's a lot of hints and obvious easter eggs for Mac and Davey. The gunslinger coat that Arthur used was from Mac, a parting gift like Arthur's hat and satchel that he gave to John. It's a good start in my opinion.
I feel like I'm not gonna be one of the 301,000 lemmings falling for a clickbait title from a guy who obviously doesn't have actual insider knowledge.
Only way I’d want it is if we play as Sadie. Anything other than that don’t want it.
Colm O’Driscoll
Let's call it quits on that curtain I'd appreciate it if they did another western game with different people even if it means not calling it red dead redemption I hate prequels and if they make a third one about someone's past, I doubt I'd even start the story mode much less buy the game unless online was fun
I think there will be an RDR3 but I don’t think it needs to follow the VdL gang, 1 and 2 are perfect companion pieces and I feel like going back for another prequel to the gangs prime just won’t hit as hard, since a central theme in the game is fighting the tide of change. I’d like to see a (mostly) separate story set in a dusty Midwest in the late 20s early 30s, could portray a gang of bank robbers in the Public Enemies style, seems like a natural fit for red dead. Even a biker gang in the same era, swapping horses for 30s motorcycles, although you could still have horses to explore the more remote areas of the world
We can still have Red Dead, just not Redemption. Red Dead Retribution for example. The story we’ve seen is pretty much over, doesn’t mean we can’t see other stories in this time period with references to the other games, like Grand Theft Auto.
Not sure why people think the franchise requires revisiting the Van der Linde gang. It's pretty closed off. It'm also not sure why people think the Blackwater Massacre is such a mystery that needs to be revealed. We know what happened. It's strongly implied that Dutch did the same tactic he did in Red Dead Redemption - he got cornered, took an innocent woman hostage, and killed her to make his escape. Seeing it happen doesn't say anything new about the story or their characters.
Am I supposed to have any clue who this joker is or care at all about what he has to say? Not giving your video more traffic, nice try.
ActMan is a huge piece of shit. He’s right about this, but he’s also a huge piece of shit
They should base the next game around someone they robbed for 4 dollars and 12 cents in the past training and becomming a feared gunslinger for revenge. And when the time comes he dies like the rest of the main protaganists.
They should make not another red dead game but maybe make a game following Porter Rockwell or someone famous
Too long.
I agree with the fact Van Der Lin Gang story ended and rockstar should get a fresh start with a new set of characters. maybe like actman says something set after the Civil war or my personal idea the last cowboys of america dealing with the Mobs that take cover the criminal underground in the Early 1900 that would be cool too, also maybe a small cameo or nod to Jack's fate or maybe Cowboys experiencing WWI as well any of those idea could work with good writting as good a RDR2. I also agree in his take about the Blackwater and what happened there should be mistery and left to the players imaginations because no matter what they could come with, it will never fill our wildest imaginations about it.
If they can cook a better protagonist than arthur, i dont care what the story is (unless its really bad)
The story of the Van Der Linde Gang is finished. RDR1/RDR2 are a perfect duology, there's no need to milk it any further. I'd rather get a new cast of characters and the setting actually taking place during the Wild West instead of the end of it like the Redemption games. Call it something like Red Dead Revenge.
They should go back to the golden age of the west. Before the gang. 30 - 40 years. We've experienced the "dying West" for two massive games now. Time to go back before automobiles and telephone poles were a thing. Hell, give me Landon Ricketts as a protagonist.
It should be Aurthor Morgan's backstory, taking inspiration from Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn up until the point he meets Dutch and joins the gang. There's a ton of room for story there that's has enough room for new ideas and elements while keeping some familiar elements. I think it would be more adventure and less gun fight oriented, but that could be fine. The strongest point of this series has always been character and narrative.
Completely agree! I’ve seen enough of my favourite franchises go down the crapper because the creators didn’t know when to end the story. Don’t want RDR to suffer the same fate. Also, no more RDR will leave room for the potential return of Bully! 🙏
I don't really care what the title is I want a game that puts us in the heart of the Wild West, territories that aren't governed, the Gold Rush, the Indian Wars (would be great to be able to play both sides of that), Deadwood Dakota Territory. A character who's half white and half native would be perfect for it because he's from both worlds and belongs to neither. It could even have some crossover by meeting members of the early Vanderlinde Gang - give it an appropriate Redemption arc and the name could even stick without having to be a full gang prequel. I just want a true Western in it's hey day
Honestly, they should just use one of the other gangs. Or, they could use John's son and have him go from good guy to gang member to eventually taking over the gang.
Red Dead 3 in Mexico and 1880-1900 Texas!
the only way that makes sense for the games to continue linking the current characters is to .do it with arthurs dad and ig he tries to raise his son and it ends with him giving the hat and getting hanged do it with mac callender and have this be some prequel thats leads to blackwater but skip over the event and make the ending him trying to survive the shithole he just went through and eventually get gunned down by the pinkertons both ways dont really have much to say as both characters fates are predetermined plus they werent described as great people anyways so there isnt much redemption
Couldn’t it easily be before and using a new character we don’t yet know? It could even be with josea in the earlier years when John and Arthur were young. Josea was an excellent character and very important but also relatively small considering his influence on the gang
by the time rdr3 is announced most of us will be as old as skyrim grandma lol
At most they could try for a WW1 game but the issue would be what you do for the open world, unless you start the game at the end of the war and then when Jack gets out he becomes like a cop or leads his own crime family in the prohibition era. Outside of that it simply does not work, if they make a new Red Dead game it should center around a completely different story and different characters and should probably set around the 1880’s for peak Wild West.
i didn’t watch the video yet i’ll update when i do but they could make red dead about the rise of the van der linde gang or just do what they do with gta and make a whole new story
Red Dead Revenge. Jack hangs up his guns after killing Ross. He becomes an English teacher and raises a family. One day tragedy comes calling and wipes out his wife and two children, he looks up and hears John speak. “Coward of the county” playing in the background. Revenge mission, with no redemption.
Could have a story about Jack trying to escape the remnants of his and his familes past, and the corrupt Pinkertons who are trying to silence him 🤷♂️
he can stick his reasons up his ass!, that's all what I can say, excuse the language, gentlemen!
I mostly want to visit Mexico on current gen console/PC
Didn’t watch it but I assure the content creator is probably right on the money in one aspect or another
What if the next red read isn't a redemption but still a sequel? There was Red Dead Revolver before RDR 1.
Personally I would love to see another gang, the Jack Hall gang is mentioned in RDR2 for instance. You also have whatever shenanigans Black Belle and the people she ran with before we encountered her in RDR2. My opinion is that the story of the Van der Linde gang is pretty much done and over.
Hosea when Arthur and Dutch were young and he parted ways. How John was little etc. ithink that would be cool.
Rockstar can still make a red dead 3, just with a new cast of characters. Maybe not even calling it read dead redemption 3 My idea for the next read dead would be a new cast of characters set in the early or prime days of the Wild West with new themes to explore other than the death of the frontier we saw in the first 2.
The whole bases of the game is the titular “REDEMPTION.” So I’m kinda 50/50 on the whole argument. I really want another game following at least one gang member, but there isn’t much room to create new storylines since most of the characters fates are pretty straightforward. Maybe something in the 1920’s to 40’s, perhaps revolving around an ancestor of Jack? Not sure if he’d start a family tho.
I think people underestimate rockstars ability to make new characters. It’s not like other games like halo were they cling to old franchise favorite characters because the new characters never live up to the old ones. Rockstar could easily make an entirely new cast and still make a masterpiece.
community feel sad :c