Logically, a theoretical RDR3 would go even further into the past, and the game would end with the group being on the run, like they are the beginning of RDR2.
That’s pretty reasonable. Or it could pick up and carry forward with where 1 ended, although timeline-wise that’s getting pretty close to the end of “The Wild West.”
I wouldn’t be mad if we got a whole new group of people in a somewhat different region, honestly, so long as they keep giving me a great world to play in and keep telling great stories.
RDR2 sits alongside Skyrim as the longest games I’ve ever completed* twice.
*inasmuch as you ever really “complete” either of those games. I’ve certainly not seen everything there is to see, but I leisurely got through the storyline twice. Plus a bunch of not-finished games of Skyrim, as well.
RDR3 could start with young Arthur getting found by Dutch and Hosea and follow his whole life and gathering all the rest of the gang and end as they’re riding up on Blackwater going, “this is gonna be a good one; we’ll be on easy street after this!” And fade to black.
And you play as Dutch?
No, still Arthur.
It’ll have a nice inverse scene to the fishing with the kid scene in RDR2 where it’s Hosea taking you fishing.
They should hire me to write this game.
Would play. 10/10
I still think it’s better if you play Dutch, and you take Arthur fishing.
Everybody’s Wrong Sometimes, and That’s OK
(gonna be a musical number in RDR3 where the camp, uh, ladies teach Arthur a Little Lesson About Life)
Let’s be honest, we all thought the decision to play Arthur in RDR2 was terrible before we actually played it. “RAAR, why can’t I be John Marson?!” and we were all wrong.
Not me, because I didn’t play RDR1 more than a couple of hours and didn’t really like it or John! I was all, “RAAR, why do I have to play John Marston” at the end of 2.
The problem with the idea of RDR3 being young Arthur is that RDR1 and RDR2 are very noirish in their story lines, with fates that fit such a “mood.” You can’t have an RDR3 with a bright happy ending.
Given that RDR2 starts with them having just gotten their asses kicked and half their posse wiped out in Blackwater, I don’t really see that happening, anyway.
True, but 1 and 2 both involve the deaths of the main character who is trying to make amends for his past sins. You might have to introduce another main character in RDR3.
I want to play RDR3 as the Legendary Bharati grizzly bear as a young cub learning to fish with mama bear.
Could easily introduce someone who winds up getting killed off in Blackwater.
Honestly, I think I would WANT another main character, regardless of how they go. Arthur’s story was great, but we already know how it ends.
Thus making tradition having the prequel star a main character that no one mentions at all in the previous game.
Go completely different and make it a Pinkerton agent who sees that his boss is actually corrupt and has a personal agenda for going after Dutch and the gang. He participates in the corruption while chasing down bad guys and gangs. He is one of the guys on the beach with Arthur when the main Pinkerton guy confronts Arthur. He sees Arthur taking a kid fishing, it doesn’t match what he’s been told about Arthur being a cold blooded bastard, and he starts having second thoughts, particularly as they do their own bad deeds under the cover of a badge.
Not a bad idea, although the only two agents present during the fishing scene are Milton and Ross, and they are both already important to the series.
There was a third agent lurking in the bushes! We play as that guy.
Oh man, now I’m imagining a game as a Pinkerton agent, something like Dashiell Hammet’s Continental Op. You’d be a plug-ugly juggernaut of a detective trying to help people solve problems but also occasionally do some pretty ethically shady things for your superiors, maybe bust up some unions or try to sink some politician’s rival. That would be pretty sweet.