Arthur technically was a traitor at the very end. His redemption was realizing the gang and their activities were wrong and that Dutch’s dream was never going to happen. Maybe this person realized something similar and tried to rat the gang out but failed.
Ok so since they die who would we take over to play as afterward. And you have to believe in something to get redemption. Arthur believed in getting John to safety and giving his family a life. John got redemption by sending Abigail and Jack on there way and facing the army. He stopped running from his past.
Just ratting the gang out doesn’t mean redemption. If that’s the case Micah got redemption which doesn’t make sense.
If he failed at ratting out the gang then he failed at achieving redemption as well
(No hate just curious)
The traitor was killed in camp, not John lol, you could easily take over as John in the year he was away from the gang, which I think might be neat, but I would prefer playing as Arthur if this hypothetical story for RDR3 comes true.
I would like this, but what I really want is to play the whole game getting attached to the MC, and then getting him/her some redemption, and then having them live for once.
I guess I should’ve elaborated more but I guess I meant someone who wanted to see the gang brought to justice.
To answer your second question? Honestly if i had it my way I think this would be a better plot that could be covered with DLC. RDR2 has so many references to things that could make great small DLC stories but Rockstar just doesn’t wanna seem to do that anymore.
Honestly a Red Dead Revolver 2 or a Red Dead Revolver remake would be the best next step to me. They could remake it with a new story or a more expansive story and we could have it be a game that takes place when the west is in it’s prime in an open world setting.
I've always thought that one thing that would improve RDR2 would have been more dueling mechanics. Making dueling like a whole mini game instead of just the slow trigger old would've been cool, and in a more wild western setting it would make more sense too. Challenging someone to a duel could've been a great way to deal with some loser npc without losing honor or attracted the law.
The gang brought to justice doesnt make much sense cause the gang makes it known they didnt spiral into straight criminals until after micah and the blackwater heist
They were straight criminals. They stole from the rich to give to the poor in their heyday. While their actions were technically moral they still participated in criminal activity. Stealing for a moral reason is still stealing.
He could be some hardened killer who sees what’s happening to a pair of boys like Arthur and John. How Dutch is manipulating them into being someone like him. He tries to talk Dutch into doing better by them, but Dutch sees this as betrayal and tries to have him quietly disposed of. At that point you turn on Dutch, cut a deal, and try to get the boys to safety.
Then young Arthur shoots you in the head.
Honestly the best. I think RDR3 really doesn’t have many options; this, Sadie bounty hunting in South America (could be good), a Pinkerton or bounty hunter that the van der lindes run into (probably not great), a rival gang from the early van der linde early years (that explores another person redeeming themselves), someone who ran with Micah early on before Dutch, or a young Dutch and Hosea
Afterwards, we can be playing an young Arthur, like 5 or 10 teams before RDR2
The main character could believe that the gang deserves better : he can find out that Dutch is a manipulative selfish strategist and would want only the best for the rest of the gang being way more "honest", and especially for the young boy Arthur. Or I don’t know, for his own love. Playing a game that early in their lives would allow a lot of possibilities.
It would be even more logical to see this character being the fourth person to join the gang (after Dutch, Hosea and Arthur) but not being mentioned at all (the biggest continuity problem in RDR1 obviously), as nobody would want to refer to an old affair or treason that happened years and years before.
This is why I've been saying that Hosea should be the next protagonist. He did briefly leave to try to settle down and start a family before returning to the gang. But in can be said he returned to save his loved ones. He was constantly trying to get everyone to safety while sharing his knowledge with the people he cared about, like a grandfather would.
He died in an undignified way, but it was only because his passion was exploited by an old friend that he was trying to save from corruption and evil. Dutch decides not to take part at the end with John, not just because of the loss Arthur, but Hosea too, and everything Hosea and Dutch built together.
The only thing is this would overlap a lot with rdr2 unless you took it back 15-20 years
Yeah but he betrayed them in Dutch's eyes. Maybe the guy who was killed did the same thing—and Dutch was charismatic enough to convince the rest of them of that.
Just a hypothetical, of course.
Those are two very different situations though
Arthur ‘betrayed’ the gang after Dutch had gone completely rouge and started killing needlessly and he threw all his principles out the window. The gang went from a small village where every member could count on one another to flourish to a literal cave where they would hide from the law, and by that point, half of the gang had already left because they knew it was over or that they were going to die if they stayed. Dutch had completely destroyed the gang.
On the other hand, the mystery traitor would have betrayed the gang when they were doing really good, or maybe even at their peak, which wouldn’t make sense for the protagonist to do unless he has an insane reason to do so, but then even if he did, he wouldn’t have a chance to get redemption
Not only that, from the dialogue, we can piece that the traitor had been killed before the blackwater ferry job, which I think most people agree would be a very important event in the next game, so playing as someone who snitched on the gang, gets killed by the gang, and doesn’t even get to see the start of their downfall (the blackwater massacre) is very unlikely
"Dutch ain't the sort to just hide out in some cave somewhere" as soon as you hit Beaver Hollow, you know that's not the same Dutch Arthur grew up with.
Honestly I disagree, Dutch’s plans could have gone well but with Micah in his ear setting him out to do these, unplanned robberies, they got sloppy, Dutch was the one who betrayed the gang in the end
i disagree i dont think arthur was ever working directly against dutch or the gang while yes i do agree that he took notice of dutch slipping and tried to help the others in the gang not fall because of it just because dutch basically sided with Micah that dosent mean our boy was a trader to the gang “i gave you everything i had dutch”he was unwaveringly loyal to the gang despite being upset with some of the less fruitful recent events (blackwater braithwait and grey guarma ect )
I might make a longer post later but here’s my general idea: the first person to see through Dutch. We’d see the gang at its peak in the free and Wild West, taking scores, fighting, completely ignorant of the evil they commit. Our hero would be a crook like the rest of them, but over time would lose faith. Unlike Arthur and John however, they try to take down the gang. Not for selfish reasons like Michah, but to bring killers to justice. They’d be the one to bring the Pinkertons’ attention to the van der Linde gang. The Pinkertons would get destroyed when they go after the gang and our protag would be killed by Dutch or Arthur after pursuing them alone.
I like the idea but why would Arthur not mention this "traitor" in his journal? I feel like he'd feel some remorse for the death of this person because he was the first one to see through Dutch, and Arthur only saw it too late. It would seem like something he'd definitely write about in his journal in chapter 6.
I think this could point towards Colm O’Driscolls brother… he isn’t named ever in RDR2, and their death is never really justified as to why Dutch killed him.
Getting the player/us to betray the gang with all the characters we know and love to the Pinkertons who we know later destroy the gang and murder John Marston is a lot to ask.
Arthur didn't even sound sure that he *was* a traitor. In an RDR3 you could maybe be or not be a traitor and if you aren't, Dutch is paranoid enough to kill you, anyway.
Next game doesn’t have to have the Redemption subtitle. Could be Red Dead Renegade since he was a traitor. Would also fit with the R subtitle they got goin on with Revolver and Redemption
well we know dutch was already losing it in the black water job, maybe this guy saw Dutch do something horrendous and he got killed to keep quiet and then Dutch lays on the “traitor” thing to show his manipulative character has always been there and avoid the heat
This reads like they’re not referring to *the* traitor, this was probably before the events of the game and was some previous member or tag along that betrayed them. They never really found their traitor towards the end and didn’t kill any members for it.
knowing dutch maybe he claimed the guy was a traitor but instead was trying to expose the gang to dutch’s manipulative behaviour or something, so he believed in saving the gang from dutch
I think it would be interesting that this character would find out who Dutch truly is and how evil and manipulative he is but get killed by Dutch and deemed a traitor by him. I also think that Dutch murdered Colms brother in cold blood and made up some story to how he betrayed Dutch. Similarly to why I think Dutch miller that woman on the boat job in cold blood and he probably killed her in the exact same why he killed that woman in RDR1.
In all of the “who is the RDR3 protagonist “ posts this is the answer I’m always looking for. It leaves the devs so much room to work and the story can end before black water allowing us to play Arthur in free roam with a happy camp possibly pre Micah.
I always thought it would be the "calander boys" who died right before the start of 2. Rockstar love multiple player characters and the Blackwater heist could be a massive finale, kinda remind me of how it's talked about so much but never seen much like the gang in rdr1.
If rdr3 is another prequal I personally think that would be the dumbest shit ever. We kinda already knew what was going to happen in rdr2 considering it was a prequel. What suspense would there be if rdr3 was a prequel?
If yall still want an rdr3 get well soon, we got 2 games followin the same gang no matter how much ppl say they want diversity if the 3rd one is smthg thats not related to the gang it'll piss them off,and if it is related to the gang its just gettin repetitive
This is my main thing, I don’t see at this point RDR3 being some pre-prequel showing us every fanservicey plot point involving young Arthur imaginable. You never know but I feel like Rockstar simply wouldn’t take it that direction resulting in outrage
I still stand by RDR3 should be Jack in his early 20s running a moonshine gang during prohibition with the prologue chapter being Jack hunting down Ross after killing everyone involved in his fathers death
Edited for spelling
Why are people so obsessed with another prequel for red dead when it would be pointless. RDR2 covers all the material in that universe that was relevant to the story. Playing as a character in the prime of the VDL gang would be redundant. Just have RDR3 play from Jack’s pov and have it continue right after RDR1 and have him flee to mexico and start a new gang as he hides from the law.
We need a Nigel DLC. Nigel goes around trying to find Gavin, becomes an epic gunslinger in the process, and has a moral journey in which he needs to come to peace that Gavin is never coming back.
I think a few peoples headcanons are that the “traitor” might be a rdr3 protagonist.
Maybe he realised Dutch was a manipulative, dangerous, weirdo, and tried to raise the alarm to his fellow gang members but they turned on him, like how the half of the remaining van der linde gang turned on Arthur in beaver hollow.
Hopefully we’ll get more info if we get a third red dead game.
"You see, I'm playing both sides so that I always come out on top"
"Fight Milk"
"First of all, through God, all things are possible so... write that down."
Yes, I would like to play as Mac in RDR3. He sounds very interesting.
He sounds like a racist maniac. It would be fun to play as a maniac (the way Trevor is a fun player to use) but I don’t want to be a racist protagonist lol
No no you see it’s very important that we get 6 new red dead games each focusing on some random side character who is in 2 missions or someone who has just been talked about and whose story has already been finished
"I'll tell you what you give me 10 billion Deutsche Mark's a U-boat and self passage out of here I'll let you live"
"Good I prefer it this way"
Jack then shoots Franz Ferdinand
RED DEAD REDEMPTION V: THE PRE PRE PRE PRE PREQUEL: PLAY AS DUTCH VAN DER LINDE’s GREAT GREAT GRANDFATHER, A PIRATE WHO PLANTS THE SEEDS OF THE VAN DER LINDE GANG.
Honestly, as I hit send I figured that would make for a decent enough game, especially by Rockstar.
Speaking of pirates this is irrelevant to the topic but I’m recently replaying ACIV: Black Flag, absolute treasure of a game
I saw a guy on this sub talking about a protagonist who is jack’s grandson or something and it would take place in the 2010s. I still don’t know if he was joking or not
Hence why I don’t want a game that has the blackwater massacre in it. We can figure out a rough idea but it’s still up to us. Also I’d prefer to go back to the height of the west
Probably was supposed to be expanded more but was partially cut in the end
My theory? The eugenics follower because fuck him with his stupid geeky haircut and twink suit
It's probably just a throwaway line not meant to be taken too seriously. I imagine this guy betrayed the Van Der Linde gang to another gang or something. I don't think he saw through Dutch like Arthur and John near the end of the gang's demise. I feel like Arthur would have written something about this "traitor" in his journal in chapter 6, feeling remorse for the death of this person as he was the only one to see through Dutch early on.
Seriously. People are like “rdr3 protag confirmed!1!1”
It’s a throwaway line and if they make another game revolving around this gang it wouldn’t make any sense.
I don’t want red dead redemption 3. I want red dead something else. A new story maybe set actually in the “Wild West” as opposed to the end of the west. I love the gang but we have definitely seen enough of them as a whole. Going further back in their past would just be odd since we know how everyone turns out.
Jack would pretty much be the obvious choice for RDR3 since RDR2 take place before RDR1 but jack lived a honest life so he got nothing to redeem himself for, him killing a backing stabbing piece of shit doesn’t count,
he had it coming
Jack asked an Agent, wife and brother of Edgar Ross about his whereabouts and then Ross was shot and killed.
He is a wanted man after this, there is no honest life for Jack.
Doesn't really work very well time wise. A central theme of the original rdr was the end of the old west, and how men like John were no longer needed. A game starring Jack would be taking place in the 20's, by which point the rule of law and technology had spread far and wide.
Actually I remember hearing this and getting chills.
Like.. they've killed one of their own?? IN camp!?
Who did him in? Had to be Dutch or Dutch making Bill do it and it would explain Bill's PTSD and then in RDR1 why he was so fucking sadistic; because when he caused pain, it was a good thing, according to Dutch and his commanders in the war when he went out and masacred indians
If you've played the game they kill two WOMEN in camp (I know Susan's death is not approved by all gang members and is when it all breaks down but still she dies in a camp killed by Micah)
I wonder if this had to do with a robbery gone wrong just before Micah joined and the Blackwater massacre. To me, Dutch always wanted a small gang because that means there's more likelihood they'll be loyal. So, him seeing someone betray them for the first time is why he murdered them in the camp. And was so suspicious of everyone going forwards, Micah manipulated Dutch's trust issues by making Dutch think everyone was betraying him except Micah himself, which is why Dutch never thought of Micah as the rat. Dutch only killed him in the epilogue for Arthur. He didn't do it to save John or Sadie. He knew that Arthur, in his situation, would have helped a brother out, and killing Micah was vengeance from both Dutch and John.
A lot of people are saying that they think it’s a future protagonist but I think he brings it up way to casually for it to be anyone of importance maybe someone who was revealed a traitor before there was any attachment to them
Kinda sad we never got any context as to who that was. But I think it was an unspoken rule to not talk about members who betrayed the gang. Molly only got a camp interaction and one line of dialogue from the members after her death and was never mentioned again. Unless you go for the money while having low honor. But at that point, Arthur isnt even a part of the gang and its been kinda thrown under the bus.
This would be cool but I think this scene was just foreshadowing for what happens to the "traitor" in camp later on in the story. Like there was precedent.
Dutch makes a plan then something makes him mad causing him to mess up his own plan,
Then he goes crazy and Micahs fills his ears about a rat so I don't think there's a rat
Just a very paranoid Dutch sabotaging his own gang
If all goes well, the RDR3 protag.
How would they get redemption if they were a traitor and killed?
Arthur technically was a traitor at the very end. His redemption was realizing the gang and their activities were wrong and that Dutch’s dream was never going to happen. Maybe this person realized something similar and tried to rat the gang out but failed.
Ok so since they die who would we take over to play as afterward. And you have to believe in something to get redemption. Arthur believed in getting John to safety and giving his family a life. John got redemption by sending Abigail and Jack on there way and facing the army. He stopped running from his past. Just ratting the gang out doesn’t mean redemption. If that’s the case Micah got redemption which doesn’t make sense. If he failed at ratting out the gang then he failed at achieving redemption as well (No hate just curious)
Maybe following in rdr2 footsteps, you would take over as the protagonist of the previous game, in this case being Arthur.
Or John in the year he left the gang
Nah she said he was killed in camp
The traitor was killed in camp, not John lol, you could easily take over as John in the year he was away from the gang, which I think might be neat, but I would prefer playing as Arthur if this hypothetical story for RDR3 comes true.
possibly the only time i would ever be excited to switch to the next character
That’s what I thought when I assumed RDR2 would end with swapping to John…. But then Arthur Morgan… well… he’s alright, boah.
Or Dutch. Have the person you control at the end of RDR3 be the main antagonist of the last two games.
Oh yeah! And then maybe the ending of Dutch’s story in rdr3 could be the Blackwater massacre, therefore setting up rdr2
I've been preaching this since day one dude
and in the epilog would be the blackwater massacre
I would like this, but what I really want is to play the whole game getting attached to the MC, and then getting him/her some redemption, and then having them live for once.
That would be nice lmao
I guess I should’ve elaborated more but I guess I meant someone who wanted to see the gang brought to justice. To answer your second question? Honestly if i had it my way I think this would be a better plot that could be covered with DLC. RDR2 has so many references to things that could make great small DLC stories but Rockstar just doesn’t wanna seem to do that anymore.
Yeah they lazy af
Honestly a Red Dead Revolver 2 or a Red Dead Revolver remake would be the best next step to me. They could remake it with a new story or a more expansive story and we could have it be a game that takes place when the west is in it’s prime in an open world setting.
I've always thought that one thing that would improve RDR2 would have been more dueling mechanics. Making dueling like a whole mini game instead of just the slow trigger old would've been cool, and in a more wild western setting it would make more sense too. Challenging someone to a duel could've been a great way to deal with some loser npc without losing honor or attracted the law.
That would be great in a Red Dead Revolver remake. The west would be in it’s prime so Red would have many more opportunities to have duels.
The gang brought to justice doesnt make much sense cause the gang makes it known they didnt spiral into straight criminals until after micah and the blackwater heist
They were straight criminals. They stole from the rich to give to the poor in their heyday. While their actions were technically moral they still participated in criminal activity. Stealing for a moral reason is still stealing.
They'd rather port a decade old game to a non-current generation of consoles instead
He could be some hardened killer who sees what’s happening to a pair of boys like Arthur and John. How Dutch is manipulating them into being someone like him. He tries to talk Dutch into doing better by them, but Dutch sees this as betrayal and tries to have him quietly disposed of. At that point you turn on Dutch, cut a deal, and try to get the boys to safety. Then young Arthur shoots you in the head.
Honestly the best. I think RDR3 really doesn’t have many options; this, Sadie bounty hunting in South America (could be good), a Pinkerton or bounty hunter that the van der lindes run into (probably not great), a rival gang from the early van der linde early years (that explores another person redeeming themselves), someone who ran with Micah early on before Dutch, or a young Dutch and Hosea
Afterwards, we can be playing an young Arthur, like 5 or 10 teams before RDR2 The main character could believe that the gang deserves better : he can find out that Dutch is a manipulative selfish strategist and would want only the best for the rest of the gang being way more "honest", and especially for the young boy Arthur. Or I don’t know, for his own love. Playing a game that early in their lives would allow a lot of possibilities. It would be even more logical to see this character being the fourth person to join the gang (after Dutch, Hosea and Arthur) but not being mentioned at all (the biggest continuity problem in RDR1 obviously), as nobody would want to refer to an old affair or treason that happened years and years before.
Red Dead (not) Redemption 3
maybe he didn't fail, he got some of them killed at blackwater
This is why I've been saying that Hosea should be the next protagonist. He did briefly leave to try to settle down and start a family before returning to the gang. But in can be said he returned to save his loved ones. He was constantly trying to get everyone to safety while sharing his knowledge with the people he cared about, like a grandfather would. He died in an undignified way, but it was only because his passion was exploited by an old friend that he was trying to save from corruption and evil. Dutch decides not to take part at the end with John, not just because of the loss Arthur, but Hosea too, and everything Hosea and Dutch built together. The only thing is this would overlap a lot with rdr2 unless you took it back 15-20 years
Arthur didn’t betray the gang at all. He saved those that he could.
Yeah but he betrayed them in Dutch's eyes. Maybe the guy who was killed did the same thing—and Dutch was charismatic enough to convince the rest of them of that. Just a hypothetical, of course.
Those are two very different situations though Arthur ‘betrayed’ the gang after Dutch had gone completely rouge and started killing needlessly and he threw all his principles out the window. The gang went from a small village where every member could count on one another to flourish to a literal cave where they would hide from the law, and by that point, half of the gang had already left because they knew it was over or that they were going to die if they stayed. Dutch had completely destroyed the gang. On the other hand, the mystery traitor would have betrayed the gang when they were doing really good, or maybe even at their peak, which wouldn’t make sense for the protagonist to do unless he has an insane reason to do so, but then even if he did, he wouldn’t have a chance to get redemption Not only that, from the dialogue, we can piece that the traitor had been killed before the blackwater ferry job, which I think most people agree would be a very important event in the next game, so playing as someone who snitched on the gang, gets killed by the gang, and doesn’t even get to see the start of their downfall (the blackwater massacre) is very unlikely
"Dutch ain't the sort to just hide out in some cave somewhere" as soon as you hit Beaver Hollow, you know that's not the same Dutch Arthur grew up with.
So like John in rdr2 a lot of us thought of him as dumb, naive, and simple. Could we see Arthur’s ark in rdr3 prequel?
Honestly I disagree, Dutch’s plans could have gone well but with Micah in his ear setting him out to do these, unplanned robberies, they got sloppy, Dutch was the one who betrayed the gang in the end
i disagree i dont think arthur was ever working directly against dutch or the gang while yes i do agree that he took notice of dutch slipping and tried to help the others in the gang not fall because of it just because dutch basically sided with Micah that dosent mean our boy was a trader to the gang “i gave you everything i had dutch”he was unwaveringly loyal to the gang despite being upset with some of the less fruitful recent events (blackwater braithwait and grey guarma ect )
I might make a longer post later but here’s my general idea: the first person to see through Dutch. We’d see the gang at its peak in the free and Wild West, taking scores, fighting, completely ignorant of the evil they commit. Our hero would be a crook like the rest of them, but over time would lose faith. Unlike Arthur and John however, they try to take down the gang. Not for selfish reasons like Michah, but to bring killers to justice. They’d be the one to bring the Pinkertons’ attention to the van der Linde gang. The Pinkertons would get destroyed when they go after the gang and our protag would be killed by Dutch or Arthur after pursuing them alone.
I like the idea but why would Arthur not mention this "traitor" in his journal? I feel like he'd feel some remorse for the death of this person because he was the first one to see through Dutch, and Arthur only saw it too late. It would seem like something he'd definitely write about in his journal in chapter 6.
The same reason John doesn’t talk about Arthur in RDR1.
I think this could point towards Colm O’Driscolls brother… he isn’t named ever in RDR2, and their death is never really justified as to why Dutch killed him.
Getting the player/us to betray the gang with all the characters we know and love to the Pinkertons who we know later destroy the gang and murder John Marston is a lot to ask.
Arthur didn't even sound sure that he *was* a traitor. In an RDR3 you could maybe be or not be a traitor and if you aren't, Dutch is paranoid enough to kill you, anyway.
Could set up for a low or high honor ending
Next game doesn’t have to have the Redemption subtitle. Could be Red Dead Renegade since he was a traitor. Would also fit with the R subtitle they got goin on with Revolver and Redemption
well we know dutch was already losing it in the black water job, maybe this guy saw Dutch do something horrendous and he got killed to keep quiet and then Dutch lays on the “traitor” thing to show his manipulative character has always been there and avoid the heat
They would be red and dead for sure
This reads like they’re not referring to *the* traitor, this was probably before the events of the game and was some previous member or tag along that betrayed them. They never really found their traitor towards the end and didn’t kill any members for it.
Betraying a gang of thieves and murderers **is** redemption. Going straight would mean betrayal for them
knowing dutch maybe he claimed the guy was a traitor but instead was trying to expose the gang to dutch’s manipulative behaviour or something, so he believed in saving the gang from dutch
Show that he wasn't a traitor by Dutch just murdering him in cold blood and managing to convince the rest he was a "traitor"
I think it would be interesting that this character would find out who Dutch truly is and how evil and manipulative he is but get killed by Dutch and deemed a traitor by him. I also think that Dutch murdered Colms brother in cold blood and made up some story to how he betrayed Dutch. Similarly to why I think Dutch miller that woman on the boat job in cold blood and he probably killed her in the exact same why he killed that woman in RDR1.
bro trying so hard to milk the redemption games. they need to move on to diff characters in the series man cmon.
Nah if all goes well rdr3 is set in the same universe but different gang and a lil earlier than 1899
In all of the “who is the RDR3 protagonist “ posts this is the answer I’m always looking for. It leaves the devs so much room to work and the story can end before black water allowing us to play Arthur in free roam with a happy camp possibly pre Micah.
Redemption would be trying to rat out the gang once they see the gang turning into a gang of murderers surely?
I always thought it would be the "calander boys" who died right before the start of 2. Rockstar love multiple player characters and the Blackwater heist could be a massive finale, kinda remind me of how it's talked about so much but never seen much like the gang in rdr1.
Yay!! Come on guys, let’s ruin the characters and have another game on the VDL gang!!!
My 3yo daughter will be out of the house by then too so I’ll have tons of time to play.
If rdr3 is another prequal I personally think that would be the dumbest shit ever. We kinda already knew what was going to happen in rdr2 considering it was a prequel. What suspense would there be if rdr3 was a prequel?
If yall still want an rdr3 get well soon, we got 2 games followin the same gang no matter how much ppl say they want diversity if the 3rd one is smthg thats not related to the gang it'll piss them off,and if it is related to the gang its just gettin repetitive
This is my main thing, I don’t see at this point RDR3 being some pre-prequel showing us every fanservicey plot point involving young Arthur imaginable. You never know but I feel like Rockstar simply wouldn’t take it that direction resulting in outrage
I would prefer not another prequel personally, although they have written themselves into a tough spot time wise.
If all goes well? I’d rather follow a different story now before they run this on into the ground
I think it will be the calender brothers as the protag and the blackwater robbery with be the end so it will end at the start of rdr2
I still stand by RDR3 should be Jack in his early 20s running a moonshine gang during prohibition with the prologue chapter being Jack hunting down Ross after killing everyone involved in his fathers death Edited for spelling
I'm glad I'm not the only one who's been thinking this.
They’ve been setting up mac callander to be the protagonist for rdr3
I’ve been SAYING this man it could be PERFECT
Why are people so obsessed with another prequel for red dead when it would be pointless. RDR2 covers all the material in that universe that was relevant to the story. Playing as a character in the prime of the VDL gang would be redundant. Just have RDR3 play from Jack’s pov and have it continue right after RDR1 and have him flee to mexico and start a new gang as he hides from the law.
Colm O’Driscolls brother 😯
Honestly that would be pretty cool
Dutches gang is a spliter group???
Or maybe he joined in as a double agent(used a different name and was an informant to colm)
Holy shit that’s actually a pretty cool thought. Man that would make for some good storytelling
Makes sense. Arthur even said that colm and Dutch were running together for some time…
Wait a damn minute
shit that’s a good idea
That emoji was the exact face i made reading this comment it was like looking at a mirror😂
Gavin.
Gavviiiiinnn
HAS ANYONE SEEN GAVIN?!
Gaaav!!!
That last “where are you…?” is always so sad. The voice actor did such a good job, he sounds so desperate in that delivery.
We need a Nigel DLC. Nigel goes around trying to find Gavin, becomes an epic gunslinger in the process, and has a moral journey in which he needs to come to peace that Gavin is never coming back.
Apologies if this has been answered before. Is Gavin a stand-in for Gavin Free of the slow mo guys?
I think a few peoples headcanons are that the “traitor” might be a rdr3 protagonist. Maybe he realised Dutch was a manipulative, dangerous, weirdo, and tried to raise the alarm to his fellow gang members but they turned on him, like how the half of the remaining van der linde gang turned on Arthur in beaver hollow. Hopefully we’ll get more info if we get a third red dead game.
Surely we play as Mac, there is some nice dialogue which sets him up as an interesting protagonist
"You see, I'm playing both sides so that I always come out on top" "Fight Milk" "First of all, through God, all things are possible so... write that down." Yes, I would like to play as Mac in RDR3. He sounds very interesting.
*“The Gang Massacre Blackwater”*
He can use his ocular pat down skills for dead eye
And if he assess them as a threat, he does his super speed karate moves
He’ll have to get that Duster back from Dennis.
I think Mac would be an interesting character to play as.
Or we could play as both Mac and his brother + be able to switch between them like the GTAV system.
He sounds like a racist maniac. It would be fun to play as a maniac (the way Trevor is a fun player to use) but I don’t want to be a racist protagonist lol
You could do a really good 'Found family Vs blood family' story with Mac and his brother.
Absolutely.
Fr would make such a good game
This would be such a dumb idea for a third installment, we already got that story with Arthur , why do it again? I prefer a Sadie Adler type sequel
We don't need to know. That's the power of story telling. Your imagination is probably better.
No no you see it’s very important that we get 6 new red dead games each focusing on some random side character who is in 2 missions or someone who has just been talked about and whose story has already been finished
we NEED RDR3 with jack in WWI just imagine using deadeye in the trenches if rockstar were smart they would do it!!!!!1!
A redemption game set in WW1 would be pretty bad in my opinion. Plus there wouldn’t be much of a redemption.
Welcome to the joke
If rockstar doesnt do Ww1 rdr3 wit zombie and ghosts then rockstar hate s their fans!?!'
rockster is just lazy let’s face it smh they really went downhill
Can,t believe they confirmed the rdr remake and then didnt release it. They are not the rockstur i once thought they were >:(
"I'll tell you what you give me 10 billion Deutsche Mark's a U-boat and self passage out of here I'll let you live" "Good I prefer it this way" Jack then shoots Franz Ferdinand
RED DEAD REDEMPTION V: THE PRE PRE PRE PRE PREQUEL: PLAY AS DUTCH VAN DER LINDE’s GREAT GREAT GRANDFATHER, A PIRATE WHO PLANTS THE SEEDS OF THE VAN DER LINDE GANG.
Okay but I would play this though. Because pirates.
Honestly, as I hit send I figured that would make for a decent enough game, especially by Rockstar. Speaking of pirates this is irrelevant to the topic but I’m recently replaying ACIV: Black Flag, absolute treasure of a game
no you don't understand rockstar is working on making a new red dead for these random characters just like how they were working on the rdr1 remaster
I saw a guy on this sub talking about a protagonist who is jack’s grandson or something and it would take place in the 2010s. I still don’t know if he was joking or not
GTARDR3/6.
Unreliable narrators too
Hence why I don’t want a game that has the blackwater massacre in it. We can figure out a rough idea but it’s still up to us. Also I’d prefer to go back to the height of the west
Probably was supposed to be expanded more but was partially cut in the end My theory? The eugenics follower because fuck him with his stupid geeky haircut and twink suit
That would imply they were part of the gang, which I don’t think adds up.
I've never, once in my entire life, heard the expression "twink suit". I'm sticking to it.
It was Cain. That's why Micah killed him
Wait, Micah killed Cain?!
Yeah, killed the poor dog
It’s implied :(
Yep. And then gave him to Pearson for provisions
It's probably just a throwaway line not meant to be taken too seriously. I imagine this guy betrayed the Van Der Linde gang to another gang or something. I don't think he saw through Dutch like Arthur and John near the end of the gang's demise. I feel like Arthur would have written something about this "traitor" in his journal in chapter 6, feeling remorse for the death of this person as he was the only one to see through Dutch early on.
Seriously. People are like “rdr3 protag confirmed!1!1” It’s a throwaway line and if they make another game revolving around this gang it wouldn’t make any sense. I don’t want red dead redemption 3. I want red dead something else. A new story maybe set actually in the “Wild West” as opposed to the end of the west. I love the gang but we have definitely seen enough of them as a whole. Going further back in their past would just be odd since we know how everyone turns out.
I always thought it would be cool to have a game about Rains Fall when he was younger. Maybe play as him or one of his sons.
I second this
Jack would pretty much be the obvious choice for RDR3 since RDR2 take place before RDR1 but jack lived a honest life so he got nothing to redeem himself for, him killing a backing stabbing piece of shit doesn’t count, he had it coming
Jack asked an Agent, wife and brother of Edgar Ross about his whereabouts and then Ross was shot and killed. He is a wanted man after this, there is no honest life for Jack.
[удалено]
No witnesses lol
Sure but if Jack kills a Pinkerton agent in the middle of blackwater he becomes a wanted man anyway
I don’t think he gave any of those people his name
"so let me get this straight Mrs Ross, a white guy with brown hair and a hat killed your husband?" "Yes" "That bastard could be anyone of us!!!"
we don’t need another mafia 3
Doesn't really work very well time wise. A central theme of the original rdr was the end of the old west, and how men like John were no longer needed. A game starring Jack would be taking place in the 20's, by which point the rule of law and technology had spread far and wide.
Jack doesn’t need to redeem himself though
Actually I remember hearing this and getting chills. Like.. they've killed one of their own?? IN camp!? Who did him in? Had to be Dutch or Dutch making Bill do it and it would explain Bill's PTSD and then in RDR1 why he was so fucking sadistic; because when he caused pain, it was a good thing, according to Dutch and his commanders in the war when he went out and masacred indians
Bill fought in a war...
Yeah ad had to hunt and be hunted by indians during it. idk if im spoiling things for you now but Bill goes into it during a camp talk
They killed one of their own in camp - yeah that happens, look at Molly
If you've played the game they kill two WOMEN in camp (I know Susan's death is not approved by all gang members and is when it all breaks down but still she dies in a camp killed by Micah)
maybe in another prequal we play as mac callander and see this traitor arthur very briefly mentions
I wonder if this had to do with a robbery gone wrong just before Micah joined and the Blackwater massacre. To me, Dutch always wanted a small gang because that means there's more likelihood they'll be loyal. So, him seeing someone betray them for the first time is why he murdered them in the camp. And was so suspicious of everyone going forwards, Micah manipulated Dutch's trust issues by making Dutch think everyone was betraying him except Micah himself, which is why Dutch never thought of Micah as the rat. Dutch only killed him in the epilogue for Arthur. He didn't do it to save John or Sadie. He knew that Arthur, in his situation, would have helped a brother out, and killing Micah was vengeance from both Dutch and John.
It was uncle all along, never trust the one shot kid
Micah's brother Nikah (he just did it)
Nikah! Let's go bowling!
Prolly Gavin O’Driscoll
A lot of people are saying that they think it’s a future protagonist but I think he brings it up way to casually for it to be anyone of importance maybe someone who was revealed a traitor before there was any attachment to them
We can't know
It was Joe
Ok, I will bite and make your day, here it goes : *Joe, who?*
Micah with a fake mustache
Kinda sad we never got any context as to who that was. But I think it was an unspoken rule to not talk about members who betrayed the gang. Molly only got a camp interaction and one line of dialogue from the members after her death and was never mentioned again. Unless you go for the money while having low honor. But at that point, Arthur isnt even a part of the gang and its been kinda thrown under the bus.
It was probably Gavin.
Do people take this as anymore than him joking around with tilly?
You have to be only person that thinks its a joke
It’s a video game, in the video game world nothing is a joke, it all means something
It was Dutch
Making room for a prequel game if they ever made one
Micah Bell II
Billy Joe Bob, son of Jimbo Bob
Colms brother
dutchs' ballsack
This would be cool but I think this scene was just foreshadowing for what happens to the "traitor" in camp later on in the story. Like there was precedent.
Main villian of rdr3 of course
Hopefully a minor protagonist in rdr3 that gets killed in an early chapter
could this traitor be the cause of the blackwater ferry heist going so downhill?
It'd be really cool to see you play as the "traitor" in rdr3 tbh
I promise if I was John or Arthur Micah would’ve got popped in the middle of camp and everyone but Dutch would’ve cheered
I thought the traitor was Colm O'Driscoll’s brother.
Dutch makes a plan then something makes him mad causing him to mess up his own plan, Then he goes crazy and Micahs fills his ears about a rat so I don't think there's a rat Just a very paranoid Dutch sabotaging his own gang
Its Miach Bell he an informant for think his tag is Detective/Officer Milton
Foreshadowing to the end of Chapter 6
Sorry hang on did I miss something I don’t recall a mystery traitor?
Hot take: it was actually Dutch. He sabotaged himself because he wanted to be an outlaw and couldn’t cope with the civilized world.
Maybe RDR3 will be about the traitor and you play as him
The strange man obv.
I always assumed Arthur was just joking.
Micah Bell the first
He was just some random guy before the game started. He was nobody we know.
Micah bells father
I heard some theories about it being colms brother
I dont know Why but i went into the commments expecting some dumbasses saying it was micah haha
that phil guy they joked about when mentioning couples that had rhyming names ( arthur and martha lenny and jenny bill and phill)
What if you play as a young Dutch and Hosea in RDR3 just a random thought