Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
If there's a RDR3 it'll have to be another prequel since RDR1 ends at the end of the outlaw era. So since RDR2 was a prequel to RDR1, they'll most likely have to do a prequel to the prequel. So RDR3 would be a prequel to RDR2. I think it's unlikely, but it's the only way for us to have a RDR game that advances years in the story because if RDR3 follows John Marston's kid the way RDR1 ends, you're going into the 1900s, so the game won't really be anything like RDR1 or 2.
+1
I also like Hitodama his comment!
I don't think they'll use Jack, since they'd have to send him off to WWI and that'd be a bit... odd.
Lot of Stories to tell.
I would rather though they Expand their Franchise in a different Direction. I always though Rockstar should make a Space game. Ones that other Company's won't. The DIRTY SEXY and VIOLENT Kind.
Maybe if Starfield Does well Rockstar could sell their Investors on it. Look those guys did well. Rockstar and Bethesda Seem to have a Friendly Rivalry going and I think that makes each of the Companies games a LITTLE Better then they would be.