Red Dead Redemption 3 is 'unnecessary', fans argue
Topics: Red Dead Redemption, Rockstar Games, Red Dead Redemption 2
Featured Image Credit: Rockstar Games
Topics: Red Dead Redemption, Rockstar Games, Red Dead Redemption 2
While you might be thinking that Red Dead Redemption fans are clamouring for a third instalment, it’s certainly not a universally agreed upon wish. In fact, some fans controversially think that Rockstar Games should just leave the franchise as it is.
It’s no secret that many fans have hailed Red Dead Redemption 2 as being one of the best-looking games out there and one of the best open-worlds. It does beg the question, could Rockstar Games possibly top it? Assumedly, we will end up getting a Red Dead Redemption 3. I can hardly see Rockstar abandoning what is one of the most celebrated gaming franchises. That being said, we have no official news on such a game. Then again, Rockstar is busy cooking up GTA VI. John Marston’s actor did drop a juicy tease but some fans are arguing that Red Dead 3 simply isn’t needed.
Take a look at our favourite Red Dead Redemption 2 wins and fails below.
Advert
Reddit user ayyLumao wrote, “Unpopular opinion: I think Red Dead Redemption 3 is entirely unnecessary and shouldn't be made. Look, I love Red Dead. Both Redemption games are among my favourite games of all time, and I think they're among the best games ever made, however, we don't need more. The story wrapped up very nicely in my opinion and I don't think another prequel about Dutch and Hosea, or Uncle and his Lumbago would be a good idea. Same with a sequel about Jack, especially since WW1 started in the same year that RDR1 ended.”
They continued, “I think the way to go for another Red Dead would be Red Dead 4, whether that's ‘Red Dead Revolution’ or ‘Red Dead Raving Rabbids’, I don't want Redemption to be ruined by an overly milked story spanning backwards across eight different games or something.”
Surprisingly, this user wasn’t alone. “I agree. I think if they craft a phenomenal new story, and enough technological improvements are made to make some really compelling new gameplay, I'd be down. But otherwise, 1 and 2 are phenomenal and don't really need revisiting,” Calibretto9 added, while DC1919 said, “Same. I think people need to understand that some games hold a snapshot in time. RDR2 will always be regarded as one of the best games ever made and I think making sequels dilutes that.” Which side of the fence do you sit on?