• Post New Message
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Red Dead Redemption 2
  3. Red Dead Redemption 3 with a young Dutch

User Info: scabab

scabab
1 month ago#1
That seems like the way to go. Some people may want an entirely separate story and characters like GTA but I think these games being connected makes them more interesting.

You can't really go forward in time because the Cowboy era was already nearing its end by the other games so you can only go backwards.

This game mentioned quite a bit of history without going into too much detail. Dutch was in a partnership with Colm. He met Hosea and formed the gang in the 1870's. He met the 14 year old Arthur and later the young child John and saved him.

"Between 1887 and 1899, the gang carried out roughly 37 different bank robberies in various locations around the country."

Dutch killed Colms brother with Colm then killing Annabelle, Dutch's lover. There were other members of Dutch's Gang who were mentioned and had died prior to this game like the two Callender brothers and Jenny Kirk.

So there's clearly room for a game to be had here. If RDR2 was about how Dutch's Gang fell apart then I think RDR3 could be about how it rose up in the first place. Have the game centered around Dutch from where he was partnered with Colm up to them losing their money in blackwater. Set more in the heyday of the Cowboy days of the previous games.

It wouldn't surprise me if that was meant to be the plan all along. Things like how they referred to Dutch killing a girl in a violent way a few times but never showed it or much came of it afterwards...but leaves it open to actually show what happened in another game.

And again like RDR2, the next game could bring back the previous games location while adding in a whole new location with it.

User Info: kainzow42

kainzow42
1 month ago#2
scabab posted...
That seems like the way to go. Some people may want an entirely separate story and characters like GTA but I think these games being connected makes them more interesting.

You can't really go forward in time because the Cowboy era was already nearing its end by the other games so you can only go backwards.

This game mentioned quite a bit of history without going into too much detail. Dutch was in a partnership with Colm. He met Hosea and formed the gang in the 1870's. He met the 14 year old Arthur and later the young child John and saved him.

"Between 1887 and 1899, the gang carried out roughly 37 different bank robberies in various locations around the country."

Dutch killed Colms brother with Colm then killing Annabelle, Dutch's lover. There were other members of Dutch's Gang who were mentioned and had died prior to this game like the two Callender brothers and Jenny Kirk.

So there's clearly room for a game to be had here. If RDR2 was about how Dutch's Gang fell apart then I think RDR3 could be about how it rose up in the first place. Have the game centered around Dutch from where he was partnered with Colm up to them losing their money in blackwater. Set more in the heyday of the Cowboy days of the previous games.

It wouldn't surprise me if that was meant to be the plan all along. Things like how they referred to Dutch killing a girl in a violent way a few times but never showed it or much came of it afterwards...but leaves it open to actually show what happened in another game.

And again like RDR2, the next game could bring back the previous games location while adding in a whole new location with it.
This has been discussed almost to death on this forum. Basically you have two sides.
I personally think they already have away to much of the story. I would be pretty disappointed if it is about Dutch. To be honest I thought he was one of the worst characters in the game. I would really like to see all new characters. I also would like to see a game where we are just starting to settle the west and there are very few towns. Maybe get to build your own homestead kinda like the epilogue but with more control.
But there are others who have agreed and want to play that story. Personally if Rockstar does that story it should just be dlc, no need for a whole other game.

User Info: Scully87

Scully87
4 weeks ago#3
I’d love another DLC expansion similar length to the epilogue.
I am error

User Info: scabab

scabab
4 weeks ago#4
kainzow42 posted...
But there are others who have agreed and want to play that story. Personally if Rockstar does that story it should just be dlc, no need for a whole other game.

It could potentially be too big for DLC.

User Info: arcanedarsen

arcanedarsen
4 weeks ago#5
Redemption 3 should be about Landon Ricketts early years, they could implement some cameos like younger versions of Hosea, Dutch or even Arthur, depending on the exact year. Heck, they could put so many stuff, like a bounty on Arthur's dad.
Probably will never happen because Rickett's voice actor died and he was very respected.

But yeah, everytime I see John arriving Chuparrosa in Redemption, my hype for play the early adentures of this man grows.
GT: ArcaneDarsen - Dragon's Dogma Pawn: Solace
PS ID: Darsen_CR

User Info: Jackson7777

Jackson7777
4 weeks ago#6
Maybe next time they will be honest and just sell an online game from the start and skip single player mode.

Not that it matter much to me... I doubt R* will see any more of money.
It will have to be a univerally beloved "THIS IS THE GREATEST GAME EVER" to hook me in again.

User Info: acolytes

acolytes
4 weeks ago#7
Jackson7777 posted...
Maybe next time they will be honest and just sell an online game from the start and skip single player mode.

Not that it matter much to me... I doubt R* will see any more of money.
It will have to be a univerally beloved "THIS IS THE GREATEST GAME EVER" to hook me in again.

What? RDR2's single player was done extremely well and I've never felt like it simply exists to justify the online mode.

Personally, I'd like RDIII to move away from the Van Der Linde gang and onto new characters. Their stories have been told.

Create new characters, settings and a story. Maybe Red Dead Retribution and have it be a revenge story. Hell, maybe a RDR2 style remake of Revolver.
"I learned about the blues from this kitten I knew, her hair was raven and her heart was like a tomb. My heart's like a wound."

User Info: craig_psn

craig_psn
4 weeks ago#8
I happen to agree with Jackson7777. For lots of reasons. Those familiar with dev understand the machinations that got "us" where we are now. And it won't be getting better for those who don't like the smell of the direction. And it *is* a direction, not isolated incidents without a trajectory. Still might be fun though, which is the bottom line I guess, but I actually like to play games for what I call "brain exercise", and I'm gettin' a bit flabby in the head these RDR2 days...
(edited 4 weeks ago)

User Info: nnulda

nnulda
4 weeks ago#9
Jackson7777 posted...
Maybe next time they will be honest and just sell an online game from the start and skip single player mode.

Not that it matter much to me... I doubt R* will see any more of money.
It will have to be a univerally beloved "THIS IS THE GREATEST GAME EVER" to hook me in again.

Kinda agree with this

I love this game, but, what can they do with another without it feeling the same as this.
Different characters, and period, will still result in similar mission structure and activities

And, it will be skin and bones, carrot on a stick to get you to online
Like it or not, until the legion of living impaired stop opening their wallets for every stupid, shiny new gun or outfit, single player will never be the same again, those days are gone the way of the Dodo as far as Rockstar are concerned.
The malaise started with GTA V and has now permeated this game. And we now also have the digital version of ebola.
The online update, that slowly breaks our game

If this sort of business practice is the way Rockstar want to continue with, then this will be the last game I ever buy from them.
Wallet raping is one thing, [a fool and his money are easily parted, as they say] but ruining a SP game that we paid good money for, because we wont support that abhorrent practice is another
"Remember, when you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It is only painful for others. The same applies when you are stupid."
(edited 4 weeks ago)

User Info: scabab

scabab
4 weeks ago#10
Have you people got a tin foil hat on or something?

I've put about 150 hours into RDR2's single player and never even touched the online not felt any desire too and has no effect on my enjoyment of the game.

They will always but more emphasis on the single player than online. The online is built on the single player. Maybe after release they focus more on the online and that's unfortunate but it's entirety optional.
  1. Boards
  2. Red Dead Redemption 2
  3. Red Dead Redemption 3 with a young Dutch
  • Post New Message

GameFAQs Q&A