Rockstar Red Dead Redemption

[socool]

But that's the thing. I don't want a direct sequel to Redemption, nor do I think it would really be possible without diminishing what Redemption was. It was about the end of the Old West. It took place in 1911. Jack Marston is effectively the last remnant of that world, inheriting the sins of his father. I feel like this game has to take place before, whether or not it has anything to do with the Marstons.

Judging by this edited version of the picture (open in new tab):

Man on the far left is without doubt Marston. No doubt. So it's definitely a prequel, probably revolving around the gang that John rode with. (Beens years since I played RDR, can't recall if they had a name)

Personally, I wish this had nothing to do with RDR but...here we are.

 

[The Endless]

I imagine they employ the multi character story like with GTAV.

Whatever happens, I'm excited. Rocks tar have earned our trust. They know what they are doing.

 

[socool]

I imagine they employ the multi character story like with GTAV.

Whatever happens, I'm excited. Rocks tar have earned our trust. They know what they are doing.

I REALLLLLLY hope not. It was cool for like all of 5 minutes in GTA V. Then it just became...a thing. I can think of very few times where the character switching ability ever really felt like it mattered. Am I the only one? I'm hoping R* just focuses on one really great character like they did with the last RDR.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

How about Red and John. t:

 

[Marvolo]

But that's the thing. I don't want a direct sequel to Redemption, nor do I think it would really be possible without diminishing what Redemption was. It was about the end of the Old West. It took place in 1911. Jack Marston is effectively the last remnant of that world, inheriting the sins of his father. I feel like this game has to take place before, whether or not it has anything to do with the Marstons.

Well what you want doesnt really matter in regards to what the game is or isnt. It is what it is. And based on the title it is a sequel to Red Dead Redemption of some sort.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Wasn't there a rumoured title a thousand years ago called "Red Dead Rebellion" or something like that? I would have dug that, but either way the title doesn't really bother me.

 

[Marvolo]

Wasn't there a rumoured title a thousand years ago called "Red Dead Rebellion" or something like that? I would have dug that, but either way the title doesn't really bother me.

A Red Dead Rebellion game set in the Old West during the Civil War could be fun.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Yeah it seems like something Rockstar could have had fun with, the morality of the time could have made for some unique scenarios. But still, this new game could be an interesting counterpoint to the first. If that's a new protagonist in the centre and we see his arc play out alongside Marston's it could offer a twist on the Redemption theme.

 

[Galactus123]

I REALLLLLLY hope not. It was cool for like all of 5 minutes in GTA V. Then it just became...a thing. I can think of very few times where the character switching ability ever really felt like it mattered. Am I the only one? I'm hoping R* just focuses on one really great character like they did with the last RDR.

I likes switching the character. It was fun how all the characters moved in the world by themselves and you could even meet them.

 

[Havok83]

Dark Souls is called Dark Souls, because the name Demon Souls is owned by Sony. They changed it so they could release the new IP on all systems. That is why Demon Souls ended, and they remade the series as Dark Souls. Bloodborne was a different game and was again owned by Sony.

This is not the same thing.

Demon's Souls itself was a spiritual succesor to King's Field IV. They didnt name any of those subsequent games King's Field V. Even if you ignore this, then think of it like System Shock 2 to BioShock, both of which are owned by the same people. Or heck CoD's naming scheme going from CoD3 to CoD4:MW to CoD:WaW to CoD:MW2, etc... Numbers behind the subtitles now are used to link the actual sequels. The trailer should answer some questions but based on that poster and how it appears to link up to characters that played prominently into Redemption, then that would explain why Rockstar went in this direction

Wasn't there a rumoured title a thousand years ago called "Red Dead Rebellion" or something like that? I would have dug that, but either way the title doesn't really bother me.

there were tons of rumors. Mainly stuff people made up in their heads and tried to make a thing. Revolution, Revenge, were also titles thrown out there. Nothing ever came from Rockstar

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Demon's Souls itself was a spiritual succesor to King's Field IV. They didnt name any of those subsequent games King's Field V. Even if you ignore this, then think of it like System Shock 2 to BioShock, both of which are owned by the same people. Or heck CoD's naming scheme going from CoD3 to CoD4:MW to CoD:WaW to CoD:MW2, etc... Numbers behind the subtitles now are used to link the actual sequels. The trailer should answer some questions but based on that poster and how it appears to link up to characters that played prominently into Redemption, then that would explain why Rockstar went in this direction

Spiritual successors do not keep the title, they do not stay in continuity. That is the entire point.

System Shock and BioShock don't have the same continuity. They aren't apart of the same franchise. You know what is? BioShock and BioShock Infinite.

When the creator of Demon Souls, Dark Souls and Bloodborne mentions not making another Dark Souls game right now, he never says they aren't working on Bloodborne, and has mentioned we will be getting a game fans expect. Which is probably Bloodborne 2, or might even be Demon Souls 2.

God of War 4 won't be a spiritual successor. It is going to be the next God of War game, even with all the changes.

 

[Silvermoth]

Where are all the women characters though?

 

[Roose Bolton]

Scattered throughout the open world, I would imagine.

 

[Galactus123]

I think it would be better if the old characters didn't return. They should tell us new stories with new characters. Marston can appear but I'm not sure if I want a game based on his old gang.

Here is a great article by Eurogamer about the previous game:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-10-the-one-and-leone-looking-back-at-red-dead-redemption

 

[Havok83]

Spiritual successors do not keep the title, they do not stay in continuity. That is the entire point.

System Shock and BioShock don't have the same continuity. They aren't apart of the same franchise. You know what is? BioShock and BioShock Infinite.

When the creator of Demon Souls, Dark Souls and Bloodborne mentions not making another Dark Souls game right now, he never says they aren't working on Bloodborne, and has mentioned we will be getting a game fans expect. Which is probably Bloodborne 2, or might even be Demon Souls 2.

God of War 4 won't be a spiritual successor. It is going to be the next God of War game, even with all the changes.

Not according to Rockstar:

Q & A with Rockstar Games about Red Dead Redemption
“Do you guys consider Red Dead Redemption a SEQUEL to Revolver, or something else like spiritual successor or followup?”

Well, it’s definitely not a narrative sequel — more of a spiritual successor as you put it. Exploring the themes of the American West, but now in an open world environment, which we decided while finishing Red Dead Revolver, was the only way to do this subject matter justice.


Im more inclined to listen to the developer and their intentions over what you presume about it. And they didnt keep the title. They changed it. Neither game was Red Dead: Subtitle Something. Revolver was a different type of game and Redemption was one that went in a different direction. As I said before Red Dead just represents the western themes. Even if you still dont want to buy it and call it a spiritual successor? Then fine, call it a spinoff. In either case Redemption has been set up as its own sries

 

[SpideyVille]

I was listening to the video that The Know put up about this, and they stated it was a Pre-quel as if it were fact. I don't remember hearing that confirmed, but it had me wondering, would they really bring back John with a different voice actor?

 

[Galactus123]

Not according to Rockstar:

Q & A with Rockstar Games about Red Dead Redemption
“Do you guys consider Red Dead Redemption a SEQUEL to Revolver, or something else like spiritual successor or followup?”

Well, it’s definitely not a narrative sequel — more of a spiritual successor as you put it. Exploring the themes of the American West, but now in an open world environment, which we decided while finishing Red Dead Revolver, was the only way to do this subject matter justice.


Im more inclined to listen to the developer and their intentions over what you presume about it. And they didnt keep the title. They changed it. Neither game was Red Dead: Subtitle Something. Revolver was a different type of game and Redemption was one that went in a different direction. As I said before Red Dead just represents the western themes. Even if you still dont want to buy it and call it a spiritual successor? Then fine, call it a spinoff. In either case Redemption has been set up as its own sries

But they did keep the title. The subtitle just changed.

Edit: I don't think that naming argument is a good one. Naming the games Red Dead something is a logical way to do it and that is what people expected.

Where are all the women characters though?

If the game is about Marton's gang then it wouldn't make sense to include playable women. I'm sure there are women in the game.

 

[Havok83]

But they did keep the title. The subtitle just changed.

Edit: I don't think that naming argument is a good one. Naming the games Red Dead something is a logical way to do it and that is what people expected.

there is no subtitle. The entire name of the game is Red Dead Revolver, not Red Dead: Revolver. One can try and be technical and argue for or against it, but its clear what their intentions are and what people expect doesnt matter. At the end of the day, its just a name

 

[Broseph44]

Wow we are still on this title thing?

 

[Broseph44]

Where are all the women characters though?

Is this a serious question

 

[KillerMcQueen]

Judging by this edited version of the picture (open in new tab):

Man on the far left is without doubt Marston. No doubt. So it's definitely a prequel, probably revolving around the gang that John rode with. (Beens years since I played RDR, can't recall if they had a name)

Personally, I wish this had nothing to do with RDR but...here we are.

fifth person in the pic almost has to be Bill Williamson as well. That's gotta be the gang they were in prior to RDR's events.

 

[SpideyVille]

there is no subtitle. The entire name of the game is Red Dead Revolver, not Red Dead: Revolver. One can try and be technical and argue or against, but its clear what their intentions are and what people expect doesnt matter. At the end of the day, its just a name

You mean to tell me the last GTA game was not GTA 7?

 

[Havok83]

You mean to tell me the last GTA game was not GTA 7?

nah, that totally should have been GTA: San Andreas 2

 

[James]

If the game is about Marton's gang then it wouldn't make sense to include playable women. I'm sure there are women in the game.

Even if there weren't actual female outlaws in the Old West (which there were), it wouldn't be the first time someone's switched things up for the sake of fiction.

 

[Silvermoth]

Is this a serious question

Why wouldn't it be.

Scattered throughout the open world, I would imagine.

That's a bit dull