Sadie Adler - The Villain of RDR3?

[HerculeHolmes]

How would everyone react to seeing Sadie return in RDR3, but in a more villainous role? Perhaps having spiraled further into depravity as the years go on and becoming more of a remorseless monster than she already claims to be?

Is there any potential there?

[Steven Shipler (JSA)]

No just no I don't want her to be a villain let her live her life in peace with someone

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Maybe not in the context as you see it. But I honestly would love to play a lengthy RDR story with someone like Sadie or Charles as the protagonist.

We at least get to see her at her house with her husband Jake in RDO. But that is all, you having some simple side quests available through either of them (Jake during day-light hours and Sadie during night-time hours). As that all takes place before the Van-Der-Linde Gang comes into the picture in this territory.

Many critics have already weighted in and said it was a gamble already to have Arthur as the player in RDR2. But given the scope of the story and all throughout RDR1 and 2, that it would be a huge gamble to try and introduce players and fans to an all-new character to play as. Their thinking is that it would make more sense for us to play as someone we're already familiar with; such as Dutch, Sadie, Charles; maybe even Jack Marston after he gets older.

[Argent]

why would she be a villain lol she's a good person- she became a bounty hunter and then a mercenary, not a bandit or gang leader.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

The bigger problem I see is how to go about a time line and overall world in RDR3; if that is to actually be a sequel to RDR1. Because with John Marston passing away in 1911, at which time Jack is 16 years of age. So while after he becomes adult age in 1913, where would we go from there. Even IF you do not play as Jack in RDR3, for everything to make sense without revisiting the time-lines of RDR 1 or 2, we would be playing either after 1911, or before 1898 (I would say a bit further back since 1898 is basically the time period everything in RDO takes place, followed by the start of the RDR2 timeline in 1899 onward, with RDR1 ending in 1911)

[HerculeHolmes]

Originally posted by Bad 💀 Motha:

The bigger problem I see is how to go about a time line and overall world in RDR3; if that is to actually be a sequel to RDR1. Because with John Marston passing away in 1911, at which time Jack is 16 years of age. So while after he becomes adult age in 1913, where would we go from there. Even IF you do not play as Jack in RDR3, for everything to make sense without revisiting the time-lines of RDR 1 or 2, we would be playing either after 1911, or before 1898 (I would say a bit further back since 1898 is basically the time period everything in RDO takes place, followed by the start of the RDR2 timeline in 1899 onward, with RDR1 ending in 1911)

Well, the US Homestead Act was in effect until 1983... with the last territory one could stake a claim in being Alaska.

Maybe RDR 3 is set in Alaska with Jack Marston at some point in the 40's?

[Bad 💀 Motha]

If we reach a point where Petrol Vehicles is the norm; then its no longer RDR as far as I am concerned. The critics have been down that road too. They basically agree, once RDR reaches the time-line of Mafia 1, late 20s, early 30s, then RDR just becomes something else... not an RDR that makes it worthy of using that name.

If you have seen shows like 1883 and 1923, then you can kind of see how the whole outlaw thing is getting old by the 1920s in the United States. At that point you are just a cowboy on a farm or ranch, but you're no outlaw running around in the Wild West anymore.

I can hardly see Rockstar making us play as Jack Marston. It doesn't make sense. How do you keep calling something "Red Dead" without the Wild West setting.

Jack is probably going to go get an education and/or maybe serve during WWI or WWII, who knows. He ain't no gun-toting gangster.

[Nessa]

There is no red dead without horses

[Bad 💀 Motha]

You said it brother.

[J Jonoh Jamson]

I've always imagined Jack got forced into WWI in exchange for his freedom, and became something like a Revolver Ocelot character. Though it's not the Wild West, it's still the Western Front and they still had horses.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

We still have guns and horses today what's your point

[English Rose]

No, Sadie is boring

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Originally posted by Otzdarva's nipples:

No, Sadie is boring

So are like 80% of the other gang members and most of the ladies. As we don't know or see them fully. Most of them we really don't even know most of their background, only small pieces. Why is that? Maybe because there just isn't a whole lot written and revealed about them. If Rockstar put forth effort to write a good script for a character like Sadie or Charles. I doubt we would find them boring. If you ask me, John is a sad puppy who's lazy and has no life.

[Gwynbleidd]

No i didn't think. Rdr3 probably set around 1880, before RDR2

[Khorne Flakes]

Originally posted by Bad 💀 Motha:

Originally posted by Otzdarva's nipples:

No, Sadie is boring

So are like 80% of the other gang members and most of the ladies. As we don't know or see them fully. Most of them we really don't even know most of their background, only small pieces. Why is that? Maybe because there just isn't a whole lot written and revealed about them. If Rockstar put forth effort to write a good script for a character like Sadie or Charles. I doubt we would find them boring. If you ask me, John is a sad puppy who's lazy and has no life.

All the other women and gang members are far more interesting than Sadie Sue.


I'd prefer Rockstar just be done with the Wild West. I want them to explore the Golden Age of Piracy as our own captain or the medieval period as a Robinhood-like character.

[Rhaaxerus]

Sadly, the RDR story seems too neatly tied together in RDR1 and RDR2, to really have a place for an RDR3.

RDR2 is really just an origin story for the main and singular story being told in RDR1.
The Red Dead Redemption story's core theme is how a dying breed of outsiders try to reconcile with a world that no longer has a place for them.
Going with a post-1911 Jack Marston is after the end of the true Wild West era and too detached from the setting.
A pre-1899 setting has possibilities, like Lyle Morgan, but it also would be too detached from the RDR characters and theme that we've been familiarized with.

Sure they could just go ahead and make a RDR3+ series on and on, and make origin stories for every character in the Van der Lin gang, but I doubt there's simply a market interest for that from investors.

I think accepting the RDR story as fulfilled and allowing it to be as it is, would be the best decision.

But Rockstar's main gravy train is the gang and underworlds of society;
So a different theme that would be interesting to see Rockstar get into, would be the industrial period and the gangs/mafias of the 1890s into 1920s.
I know we get something similar with games like L.A. Noir and Mafia with the 1930s and 40s, but I we haven't seen Rockstar take up the setting of something like Peaky Blinders or anything yet.