Red Dead Redemption 3 following RDR1 is a 'terrible idea' fans agree

Red Dead Redemption fans know so little about the next game, yet they already believe its premise is a “terrible idea”.

Taking into account all of the ways the Red Dead Redemption fandom could have framed its response, this one is quite polite.

One of the main problems with RDR3 following RDR1 is the fact that it'll place the third game at the end of the American Frontier, aka the Wild West.

On PC? Why not play Red Dead Redemption and Undead Nightmare!

Considering that we associate Rockstar’s game with that time period, setting it at that point in history seems an odd and unwise choice.

“Why would you set a game when the Wild West is already over and almost all the characters of RDR1 and 2 are gone?” queried Bornana6969 on the RDR subreddit.

To avoid running into what seems to be an obvious hurdle to us, the suggestion is that new characters unrelated to previous ones are the focus of RDR3.

Furthermore, that its time period is “set in the prime of the Wild West”.

The majority of fans would like to see a Native American playing the lead, but if that isn’t what Rockstar goes with, they’ll settle for a familiar face instead.

“Only acceptable version of RDR3 being a continuation of the story would be if you follow Sadie [...] Other than that, there's not much you can really add narratively to the story with another prequel,” suggested RealLameUserName.

Even though we want to know what became of Jack Marston, we don’t care enough to see the series deviate into a GTA 'Roaring 20s' style experience.

For better or worse, we’ve become used to RDR being a Wild West adventure; changing that formula now would likely doom it to failure.

We’d like to be pleasantly surprised, not to mention wrong in our assumption.

Right now, though, it seems unlikely that’ll be the case.