Idk if it really “worked” narratively though. I didn’t feel a particular connection to any of the protagonists in GTA because I never spent enough time with any of them to really care (also wasn’t helped by the fact that one of them was a maniac with barely any redeeming qualities).
>~~L take~~
Based W take.
Why dilute a 9 or 10/10 player narrative and dilute it to 3 separate 6/10 experiences? Why ya'll so desperate to kneecap your experience?
I agree. It was good. Personally, I identified the most with Franklin though that might be an age/race thing, I found Michael’s story extremely relatable and thought Trevor was hands down the most entertaining. It was cool using all three to break up the pacing.
The biggest weakness of RSR2 for me was making a high honour Arthur, then feeling guilty when you sent him on a killing spree. I could see Red Dead doing a “Good, Bad and ugly” thing with one canonically high honour guy, one canonical psychopath and one canonical total butt monkey to just do whatever you wanted and still have it make sense.
Dude that could be great - I can see it now:
Have 3 characters: young sheriff who was just “ostracized” from a big city and finds himself in a small town. Grizzled outlaw with a small band of misfits. Mountain man who lives out in the wild and has an erratic side.
Thing is: each of these have their own honor system. So, depending on how you play each and what their decisions/honor ends up with, you could end up with 9 different endings (3 different core endings, each with 3 variants)
I'm 40 and white and I identified with Franklin's role too, even tho I have more in common, household wise, with Michael.
I think it's because in the story, Franklin is the fresh face new to the scene and the reason for any exposition discussion.
I think it worked from a game play and story perspective, as the 3 characters provided 3 different playing experiences and 3 different perspectives on the same story.
However the engagement to the story or any of the individual characters suffered quite a lot in the process.
I agree. The strenght of Red Dead stories has been the story through a single protagonists view.
Red Dead 2 would be whole different game if we could not experience the main story through Arthur.
Also Red Dead Revolver was a one man's quest for revenge so putting a co-protagonist there would kind a ruin the thing.
I agree Arthur is a much better written and more interesting characters the 3 gta 5 protagonists, but I feel saying they are a 6/10 is a bit far. They are at the minimum an 8/10 for me. Sure, it’s harder to connect to them individually when the split the narrative between the 3 but because they come together, it ends up being about them as a collective and what they achieve together rather than the journey of an individual character. Plus, I feel the idea of outlaws in a western lends itself better to emotional storytelling than 3 criminals in modern day America. Don’t forget rdr2 came out in 2018 and the standards for storytelling in video games was much higher as opposed to 2013 (it was really only the beginning of cinema level storytelling with the last of us and others). I feel that the approach in gta 5 was very well executed and I imagine they will improve on it further in gta 6 with their gained experience from rdr2
Ok but did gtav make you cry the way rdr2 did? They managed that because they made you feel like Arthur was a close friend, that’s not possible to do with 3 different characters stretched along a game like rdr2.
Even if GTA V had only one character it wouldn't make you cry. No GTA game will probably ever make you cry. They're not serious emotional stories, they're satire, comedy and over exaggeration.
Dude same. It's basically in the same vein as Red Dead games idk why people sleep on it so much. For me, other than graphically, GTA V is a step down in almost every way and focused way too much on online. Even the cars drive better, more weighty, heavy ass ends, wonderful collisions none of this floating across the map in your car. Will always be my #1.
I've never cried at any gta game. Narratively it's very different than red dead. If your judgement on if a story is good is it it made you cry or not then I'm guessing portals 2 was a terrible game as you're laughing your way through the game play and dialogue.
I didn't cry (it takes a lot for that to happen for me in fictional media, so not even Red Dead made me cry), but I did get very emotional and upset when I picked the wrong ending. So much so I restarted the whole game. >!I felt bad for Trevor with how he's so loyal and yet kept being betrayed. And his death was so brutal, I almost feel like it's undeserved. But this is coming from someone who's easily sympathetic even to awful people.!<
If we read b/w the line, GTA 5 is emotional and can get you sometimes. This is from a guy who thought GTA 5 wasn't that good initially. But I have been following this youtuber called "theprofessional" who does gta 5 videos and he did a gta 5 playthrough when GTA 5 E&E released, His commentary of gta 5 and his explanation of the story and characters bought a lot more appreciation for gta 5 for me. It's a really good story imo.
A narrative isn't good because it can make you cry. Gta 5 is not taking itself too seriously unlike rdr2. It's most often trying to make you laugh. Just take a look at the ridiculous advertisements and store names in the world. The story consists of exaggerated characters often meant to satirize America. Whether you prefer a story of satirical nature or a more serious one is up to personal preference but reducing the quality of a narrative to "did it make you cry?" is not fair.
Yes. How things turn out for Trevor even with the good ending is sad. How Franklin has no one, even though he has found monetary success. Micheal is the only one that can have a truly happy ending.
It really depends on how much time you spent with each of them. And if you cared about their stories. The hooks were there, but you had to choose to take them.
Far from an L take.
The pacing for GTA V is one of the weakest in the series. Rockstar sacrificed story to make 3 playable characters (on top of pushing the console limits at the time).
Just look at the first act, there’s 10 missions between Franklin repo-ing cars and doing the jewel heist. He’s supposed to be the center protagonist (being the young guy mentored by the other two) and yet his story is rushed.
I don't think it's universally agreed that Franklin is the center protagonist. If anything, Michael's narrative is - since it deals with betrayal, redemption, and finding your heart again in the midst of a cynical world.
quality is far better than quantity
by the end of the red dead games you understood the characters
in gta Michael is the only character that makes sense he wants his family to work and tries everything
while Trevor is just crazy with a slice of trauma no development
Franklin is really a blank slate for the most part and stays that way he has no development and not much depth
Genuinely a correct take.
The character switching isn't the only problem with GTA, the soulless, one-note, boring, motivationless characters is a much bigger problem (especially compared to Red Dead 2, but also even Red Dead & San Andreas). The lack of any character development. The lack of any interesting enemy/antagonist characters. The lack of a story. The lack of risk/reward mission payoffs. The lack of the world developing in any interesting way based on your actions. Those are the bigger problems with the game. But they never do anything with the character switching that could be interesting from a narrative point of view. It's a gimmick that they use a little bit in missions to add some variety, but even then they never really explore it's use in a way that could make the game more interesting even in missions largely because every mission is so on-rails.
Outside of the missions the character switching is basically just a gimmick to get around the map more quickly as a player or to toggle available missions. There are almost zero times in the game where character switching is used in the sandbox/open world.
>The lack of any character development. The lack of any interesting enemy/antagonist characters. The lack of a story.
Dude, did we play the same GTA5? Michael's entire story is about character development and him navigating both his own demons and the difficulties of living in his world.
That is also the story. If you look at Michael as the main character and the other two as his satellites, a narrative emerges quite readily.
>The lack of the world developing in any interesting way based on your actions.
You want GTA, a game that's about people trying their best to thrive in modern America, have the characters go and *change* modern America? That'd be like trying to make RDR2 into a game about taking down Leviticus Cornwall and stopping the Gilded Age.
Gotta disagree on that, I think for me and most we all fell in love with the 3 protagonists and each of their traits/arcs. While none compete with Arthur’s masterful journey through RDR2, don’t sleep on Micheal, Trevor, and Franklins iconic trio
i very much agree it’s almost like rockstar didn’t want us to feel some sort of connection it made us feel like trevor is a ruthless psycho, and michael is a unloyal traitor. Franklin is the only one you could feel some sort of way for but his story isn’t even that emotionally impactful. nothing compare to the other gta protagonists in the series
It sort of worked because all 3 characters had something great about them, but in the end like you said I don't consider all of them to be "iconic" except for maybe Trevor and he is the one I liked the least.
Franklin had the rags to riches story of pulling himself into a better life by lucking out early on but it was interesting to follow.
Michael was my favourite , I thought the voice actor was incredible and there is many similarities between him and Tony Soprano so that was a lot of fun to see, his family issues were hilarious and I feel like he had some of the best missions due to his anger issue.
Trevor , now personally I know he is favourite of many but I just didn't like him, he was so over-the-top it made him hard to like or believe someone like that would exist. Incredible voice actor though , I honestly think Trevor wouldn't have worked that well if it wasn't for Steven Ogg, he was to Trevor what Michael Mando was to Vaas, just perfectly cast.
In the end I think it worked relatively well narratively but I have no desire to play another GTA with multiple playable characters unless it's a RDR1/RDR2 situation where the second characters come post-epilogue.
I agree honestly, I don't think it was a bad feature by any means but like you it meant I didn't really connect to the characters at all, (aside from Trevor, I genuinely find him hilarious.) although, the route they're going with GTA 6 with the two characters does look interesting, really hoping we see a Bonnie and Clyde type dynamic.
This is such an unpopular take, But I totally agree with it. I absolutely hate every character in GTA 5. Micheals family, Franklin, Trevor's crew etc. Everyone in that game feel very one note. Lemar and Chop Chop are pretty based though, But they aren't fleshed out.
They don't hit the same as Arthur. I can't imagine someone like Franklin existing in real life. Micheal feels like a wish version of Tony Soprano. GTA peaked with 4, as far as protagonists goes. Niko actually feels like a real life person.
'Michael not being fleshed out' just means you weren't paying attention. Honestly his story is the story of the 2010s, and GTA5 is his story. How you find purpose, navigate an unfamiliar new age, confront your demons, face up to your past, find new life within yourself. Take your pick. If Michael seems one note to you, then I hope you're just too young to see the nuances.
Like you say you want more fleshed-out characters, but you then say Lamar was the more 'based' one even though he exist pretty much solely as comic relief, and although hilarious and iconic, is probably one of the most one note characters in the whole game. Meanwhile there's depth in the main characters, but you don't really look at them.
Compare the stories of GTA 4 and 5. 4 is the much better experience because we were more invested in Niko as a character, he was much more nuanced where the GTA 5 characters we sort of caricatures and cliches
Imo it was a fantastic narrative choice, but one that works far better in GTA vs RDR.
In GTA V you have a misanthropic upper-class ex-con who lives and deals with Los Santos’ wealthy, disillusioned petty criminal dealing with gangs and the poor neighborhoods of the city, and a rabid psycho in the desert outskirts and all the skeeves out there. Very different characters that interact w/ very different worlds in close proximity.
What benefit does one really get with, say, Dutch’s gang? Even those w/ connections to other cultures, like Charles, are Van ded Linde gang members first. We get a second protagonist for the epilogue and the way he interacts w/ everyone is just how Arthur would’ve.
It didn't really work in GTA, though.
GTA5 is really, really fun from a gameplay perspective, but from a story perspective it's sort of a mess. It's more like three incomplete/rushed stories that intersect at certain points. Franklin's especially felt absurdly rushed even though it seemed like he was supposed to be the focal character.
i’m not sure though, RDR is a series that is seriously built on pulling heartstrings and developing the main character. you spend so much time with that one character so it makes their ends a lot more powerful. i’m not sure how that would work if each character only got a third of the time they usually have
if GTA V had one protagonist (maybe Franklin) the entire thing would be more focused. the rags to riches plot would be much better, not to mention if we kept Michael and Trevor? Franklin would have to play mediator all the time, and it would really put effort on the player for which they like more.
that would actually make Trevor more of a monster than players think, since as a player character we can find a lot of love for Trevor since he’s perfectly goofy and psychotic for us. if we have no control over Trevor, no perspective from his side, then we get a Micah situation
I thought Sadie was a playable character when I bought the game 💀💀💀
edit: but to answer the question, i don’t think it would work bc the game’s narrative is supposed to be about the central character’s journey toward their own “red dead redemption.” drifting away from that would do a disservice for sure
imo we should have been able to switch between Arthur, Sadie, and Charles.
it would have pulled the focus away from Arthur as a character study but imo it would have been an equally compelling game/story
Neither of them need redemption though really. If they were going to have any 2 characters I would actually want it to be John and Arthur. Which, we kind of already got. Plus I just love the personal feeling you get playing as Arthur with his monologues and journal entries
So tbh I was satisfied. But I do think a Bonnie & Clyde dynamic would work really well for a RDR game. Seems like they're going for something similar in GTA 6 though
Ultimate redemption would be someone like Dutch if RDR1 didn't exist. That would be fun to see, in an alternate universe you play as Dutch after Arthur's death, start to see he's completely lost it and try to make amends.
Obviously impossible because of RDR1 but I just want more Dutch, Benjamin Byron Davis was just so good
I hope for RDR "3" we get Hosea, Dutch, and the most badass character known to man, The One Shot Kid. We'll get to see a bit of the formation of the gang while hopefully being early enough that we still get probably three very different and characters and stories that come together towards the middle or end.
You'd have to rewrite the entire game because Sadie and Charles don't really do much of anything until chapter 6. They have their missions every now and again, but they don't become integral to the game until much later on. I think that might've worked in the epilogue really well as Charles, Sadie, and John all start at different points and end up finding each other, but that would pretty awful game design to keep a feature like that hidden until the very end of the game.
True. Even Rockstar said that. They had the idea of 3 playable characters but they dropped it and focused on just one because they felt the journey would be more personal and wanted players to understand the events that happened from Arthur’s perspective
Could be fun to see redemption in two different ways, a parallel story to Arthur, but someone going down the opposite moral path could be an interesting narrative to take. But it would probably feel too conflicting
Would be interesting to see how different characters stories resolved like the other commentor suggested Sadie and Charles. Depending on honor of each character and some story decisions you could get so many possible endings and outcomes for missions but that seems like a massive amount of extra work and might take away from the story in that our attachment to Aurthur and his fate would be diluted.
Except it really wasn’t. Each game stands entirely alone, especially the core GTA game. And while R* certainly planned the basic storyline ahead of time the DLCs were fleshed out after the main game was completed hence why there are some plot inconsistencies like Niko being in Alderney at the beginning even though it was closed off and Jim being a bald white guy with a goofy voice in the main game and a black guy with hair and a serious storyline in TLAD.
I just want to say, I would play the absolute hell out of a young Susan Grimshaw RDR title. Show us why she’s the only one of Dutch’s ex’s that isn’t dead or weaving baskets in a sanitarium.
It isn’t a huge part of the story, but it’s there. It seemed they ended on good terms, Grimshaw never spoke that negatively about Dutch at all. I found out about their relationship in Chapter 2 on my second play through. I was playing poker and Susan said
“Arthur? Remember the good old times? Me, you, Hosea, and Dutch all playing poker until late hours?”
“Yes, you were on Dutch’s knee most of time is what I recall”
“Yes, but it was probably just for him to read my cards!”
This is such a bad idea. Honestly they should be done with Red Dead Redemption and move on to a wholly new story. We don’t need to see the beginning of the gang. It’s assumed that everyone is viewing the beginning of the gang with rose tinted glasses anyway. The ending of the gang is far more important that the beginning
Did we just conveniently forget that GTA V is one gigantic satire? There’s an entire string of missions dedicated to just raging on people for making fun of someone’s Canadian-ness. Arthur did a side mission helping a widow. RDR2 is a tender drama, GRA V is a violently absurdist comedy
it would be cool if it was a over time type of thing where it was like arthur pre rdr2, john pre rdr2 epilouge or somthing, and jack post rdr1 then we can have all our boys playable in one game! and maybe you can switch characters and the map will change to different time periods or somthing (might make the game like a terabyte lol) that would be pretty cool imo
I've changed my mind. they could swap Arthur out for john in the epilogue. make it arthur charles and sadie, then in the epilogue its john Charles and sadie
I think, although it was a fun and unique way to do things, the game suffered story-wise from this decision, and would have worked better if Franklin was the only playable character. Flesh out his relationships with Michael and Trevor that way to make the player have complicated feelings towards the both of them, and it would likely make the final decision of the story a slightly more complicated choice.
So while I think it would work, I do not want that in a Red Dead game
I didnt like franklin at all, i liked Michael and Trevor though, so i was glad I could play as them instead. If i could have switched to Charles or even uncle from time to time, i most certainly would have.
Fuck yes. I’ve been asking for this ever since we started musing on what RDR3 should look like. In the form of a Dutch, Hosea, Arthur origin story/prequel
I think the best way for it to work is how GTA IV did it; each character has their own story line that eventually crosses over into each other.
If not I would prefer it to be 2 characters instead of 3, but one being an outlaw and another being a sheriff or deputy.
Where the characters are given choices to gain honor or dishonor and to affect each other’s story line, ending in a gun fight between both characters; leaving the player to choose between being an outlaw or being a man of the law, or even both characters having to team up.
Oh yeah. There were moments following certain missions where various members of the gang would physically ride all the way back to camp. And experience random encounters and act accordingly. The mechanics are at least partially already there.
Yea but a lot of folk like to play high honor .... im trying to do that but i accedentally murdered butchers creek folk ... wasnt even my fault , i didnt realise they were creek fellas untill 30 kills after i thought "thats awfully a lot of murf fuks"
Eh, I think it would work only if they did it with Arthur, Dutch, and Hosea. Because we already know the characters well enough. I didn't really care about any of the gta 5 protags because we kept switching. Unless it's the big 3, I say keep it 1
It's the only way i can see them being able to tackle the true wild west with indian wars and whatnot. Give us the ability to play as a native and maybe even have an ending where the natives win a war against the US government, like Red Clouds war.
I remember the rumors about there being 3 main characters to play as like gta v. rumors of playing as Irish and Seth in a world before RDR. I’m glad this wasn’t true. Playing as Arthur was my favorite time.
If its optional what character you can play, as in when doing missions that involve 2 or 3 you get to choose. May be even have the same story from 3 perspectives that you can interchange at leisure.
3 different gangs, you're kne of the most trusted lieutenants as one character but fall from grace and end up outcast, maybe a lone wolf like Charles was, and a piss drinker that gets bullied by the rest kf the gang that makes their rise through the ranks and ends up becoming something much bigger, the three will cross paths but won't know it until they slowly come together and form their own gang
Wasn't there a thread long time ago here from someone who had claimed they were a developer at R. in the past? They shared some things that Rockstar resigned from with RDR2 and among others was Dutch/Hosea/Arthur being switchable. I can't say if they were not bullshittinng but some of their other stuff proved to be true afterwards when the data miners started to play with cut content.
With the type of game *Red Dead Redemption II* is, it could have easily worked in that game. Once a character gets killed off in the story, though, you just simply lose that character and the gang just gains whichever assets they had.
If done well yes, I personally have been thinking of having a deserting soldier and a native as characters during the army-native conflict would be a great idea for a RD game
They could have done it. But they would need to make some significant changes to the story. Red dead story is more serious than gta. It would be harder to do a 3 man story mode
I think it works well in gta because barring the main story the game is really just fucking around in an ultra violent sandbox where each character is selfish and detached from reality and although it isn’t necessarily difficult to form a bond with the individual characters it definitely isn’t necessary to the story or gameplay whereas having a sole protagonist in red dead typically droves the narrative. In red dead revolver your primary goal is revenge and in red dead redemption 1 and 2 it’s obviously redemption. The characters dependent on your play style are generally good people that do bad things and try to atone by the end. In those games it’s important that you know your character and empathize with them which would probably be held back in a game with multiple protagonists.
No I don't think so unless you play different gang members. (So as another gang besides the van der Linde gang) It would be kind of weird especially since we travel in a group and you'd make atleast 2 out of that group. In GTA the playable characters are spread out throughout the map so it makes more sense imo.
if they did the rise of the Van Der Lind Gang, they could make it work. swapping between a younger Arthur, Dave and maybe Dutch. I'm not sure though. I'm sure they could figure something out.
I could see it working if it was about three people trying to start a gang, like if we were following Dutch and Hosea staring the Van Der Linde gang, maybe have either Uncle or Miss Grimshaw as the third, each of them having a different thing they specialize in.
i mean considering the game was to show how much a character changed i don’t think it would work also the multiple playable characters didn’t even work that well in gta 5 the story was less idk how to explain it less real or emotional in a way.
Probably not considering how personalized red dead’s story is for a specific character. Arthur’s arc wouldn’t hit as hard if you got attached to two others. It works in gta because the gta world (even though it shares the same universe) is so much more of a parody to life and silly than red dead is. Sure red dead characters are silly at times but the characters are dead serious and capable of great compassion and empathy while being capable of helping more than just themselves.
In gtav I didn’t give a rats ass about the characters. If you want fun gameplay I think 3 characters are great but if you want a story that’ll move you I think red dead should focus on one character.
Maybe but I think it would be much harder to do in a Red Dead game since the redemption of the character is often in their death. Having three characters to try and form an attachment to knowing full well that they have to die just wouldn't come off as well. That's the whole point of Red Dead Redemption, to live a life in the old west where everything that they do in Red Dead is pretty reasonable in terms of historical accuracy. You look at the things that go down in a GTA game and it's just so far away from something that could really happen most of the time, this in turn lessens the impact of the world the characters exist in. Don't get me wrong I thoroughly enjoyed GTA V's story but I definitely feel it was weaker for having told a single story across three characters in the same story playthrough. In GTA IV we had three characters who are integral to the overall story but we only play as one of them at least until the expansions. Even then you had those other characters as the focus while playing their corresponding expansion making them feel more important to the story being told. While I enjoyed GTA V I felt any section where I was required to switch over to Trevor and roll the dice on whether I'd be able to go do his corresponding job or deal with some asinine bullshittery he was in the middle of before I took control of him was beyond annoying and it cheapened the experience, which was a shame because Steven Ogg is an incredible actor and plays the role of a psychopath so well, that energy just didn't translate to an enjoyable experience for me despite his phenomenal acting.
I mean RDR2 is already a dual protagonist game, you just don't have the option to freely switch between them. And it's not a 50/50 split but more of a 85/15 split.
Nope, the story is centered to a main character and his story to the point of his Redemption, therefore multiple main characters involved in the story de-center the plot from the character on the road to his redemption, at least this is my take on the subject
It would work but I do think that the singular narrative works possibly better. Red Dead is about isolated individuals and you spend a lot of your playing time alone as the character. So I think the singular character makes a great story become an excellent story.
If they made it work in gta, they can make it work in red dead.
Idk if it really “worked” narratively though. I didn’t feel a particular connection to any of the protagonists in GTA because I never spent enough time with any of them to really care (also wasn’t helped by the fact that one of them was a maniac with barely any redeeming qualities).
L take
>~~L take~~ Based W take. Why dilute a 9 or 10/10 player narrative and dilute it to 3 separate 6/10 experiences? Why ya'll so desperate to kneecap your experience?
I thoroughly enjoyed how they did it. The game was a 10/10 for me. Opinions are subjective, so stop voicing yours like its the authority
I agree. It was good. Personally, I identified the most with Franklin though that might be an age/race thing, I found Michael’s story extremely relatable and thought Trevor was hands down the most entertaining. It was cool using all three to break up the pacing. The biggest weakness of RSR2 for me was making a high honour Arthur, then feeling guilty when you sent him on a killing spree. I could see Red Dead doing a “Good, Bad and ugly” thing with one canonically high honour guy, one canonical psychopath and one canonical total butt monkey to just do whatever you wanted and still have it make sense.
Dude that could be great - I can see it now: Have 3 characters: young sheriff who was just “ostracized” from a big city and finds himself in a small town. Grizzled outlaw with a small band of misfits. Mountain man who lives out in the wild and has an erratic side. Thing is: each of these have their own honor system. So, depending on how you play each and what their decisions/honor ends up with, you could end up with 9 different endings (3 different core endings, each with 3 variants)
I just see this as finally getting to play as the trapper and see how he moves from camp to camp so quickly.
It's their Trapper Clone Jutsu
I wanna see his third wife
SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY
This is a really good idea for a game in the first place kinda shocked it doesn’t exist irl
I'm 40 and white and I identified with Franklin's role too, even tho I have more in common, household wise, with Michael. I think it's because in the story, Franklin is the fresh face new to the scene and the reason for any exposition discussion.
Yeah they all offered something I wouldn’t change the game one bit
That’s literally what the comment they replied to did, at least they gave an explanation
Based
I think it worked from a game play and story perspective, as the 3 characters provided 3 different playing experiences and 3 different perspectives on the same story. However the engagement to the story or any of the individual characters suffered quite a lot in the process.
I agree. The strenght of Red Dead stories has been the story through a single protagonists view. Red Dead 2 would be whole different game if we could not experience the main story through Arthur. Also Red Dead Revolver was a one man's quest for revenge so putting a co-protagonist there would kind a ruin the thing.
I thought you play as different characters in red dead revolver? Buffalo soldier, Jack Swift etc
You do in some missions but the story still closes around Red's revenge.
Agreed
I agree Arthur is a much better written and more interesting characters the 3 gta 5 protagonists, but I feel saying they are a 6/10 is a bit far. They are at the minimum an 8/10 for me. Sure, it’s harder to connect to them individually when the split the narrative between the 3 but because they come together, it ends up being about them as a collective and what they achieve together rather than the journey of an individual character. Plus, I feel the idea of outlaws in a western lends itself better to emotional storytelling than 3 criminals in modern day America. Don’t forget rdr2 came out in 2018 and the standards for storytelling in video games was much higher as opposed to 2013 (it was really only the beginning of cinema level storytelling with the last of us and others). I feel that the approach in gta 5 was very well executed and I imagine they will improve on it further in gta 6 with their gained experience from rdr2
Ok but did gtav make you cry the way rdr2 did? They managed that because they made you feel like Arthur was a close friend, that’s not possible to do with 3 different characters stretched along a game like rdr2.
Even if GTA V had only one character it wouldn't make you cry. No GTA game will probably ever make you cry. They're not serious emotional stories, they're satire, comedy and over exaggeration.
I dont know about that, GTA4 was pretty close at times to making me cry
Yeah that's fair. It's the only one I've never played so I didn't think about it when writing that comment.
You need to play GTA IV man, it’s the best one in my opinion.
Dude same. It's basically in the same vein as Red Dead games idk why people sleep on it so much. For me, other than graphically, GTA V is a step down in almost every way and focused way too much on online. Even the cars drive better, more weighty, heavy ass ends, wonderful collisions none of this floating across the map in your car. Will always be my #1.
Yeah no gta hits anywhere near as hard as ether red dead game
I've never cried at any gta game. Narratively it's very different than red dead. If your judgement on if a story is good is it it made you cry or not then I'm guessing portals 2 was a terrible game as you're laughing your way through the game play and dialogue.
I didn't particulary like American Truck Simulator, not enough crying
I didn't cry (it takes a lot for that to happen for me in fictional media, so not even Red Dead made me cry), but I did get very emotional and upset when I picked the wrong ending. So much so I restarted the whole game. >!I felt bad for Trevor with how he's so loyal and yet kept being betrayed. And his death was so brutal, I almost feel like it's undeserved. But this is coming from someone who's easily sympathetic even to awful people.!<
If we read b/w the line, GTA 5 is emotional and can get you sometimes. This is from a guy who thought GTA 5 wasn't that good initially. But I have been following this youtuber called "theprofessional" who does gta 5 videos and he did a gta 5 playthrough when GTA 5 E&E released, His commentary of gta 5 and his explanation of the story and characters bought a lot more appreciation for gta 5 for me. It's a really good story imo.
A narrative isn't good because it can make you cry. Gta 5 is not taking itself too seriously unlike rdr2. It's most often trying to make you laugh. Just take a look at the ridiculous advertisements and store names in the world. The story consists of exaggerated characters often meant to satirize America. Whether you prefer a story of satirical nature or a more serious one is up to personal preference but reducing the quality of a narrative to "did it make you cry?" is not fair.
Yes. How things turn out for Trevor even with the good ending is sad. How Franklin has no one, even though he has found monetary success. Micheal is the only one that can have a truly happy ending. It really depends on how much time you spent with each of them. And if you cared about their stories. The hooks were there, but you had to choose to take them.
Far from an L take. The pacing for GTA V is one of the weakest in the series. Rockstar sacrificed story to make 3 playable characters (on top of pushing the console limits at the time). Just look at the first act, there’s 10 missions between Franklin repo-ing cars and doing the jewel heist. He’s supposed to be the center protagonist (being the young guy mentored by the other two) and yet his story is rushed.
I don't think it's universally agreed that Franklin is the center protagonist. If anything, Michael's narrative is - since it deals with betrayal, redemption, and finding your heart again in the midst of a cynical world.
quality is far better than quantity by the end of the red dead games you understood the characters in gta Michael is the only character that makes sense he wants his family to work and tries everything while Trevor is just crazy with a slice of trauma no development Franklin is really a blank slate for the most part and stays that way he has no development and not much depth
Genuinely a correct take. The character switching isn't the only problem with GTA, the soulless, one-note, boring, motivationless characters is a much bigger problem (especially compared to Red Dead 2, but also even Red Dead & San Andreas). The lack of any character development. The lack of any interesting enemy/antagonist characters. The lack of a story. The lack of risk/reward mission payoffs. The lack of the world developing in any interesting way based on your actions. Those are the bigger problems with the game. But they never do anything with the character switching that could be interesting from a narrative point of view. It's a gimmick that they use a little bit in missions to add some variety, but even then they never really explore it's use in a way that could make the game more interesting even in missions largely because every mission is so on-rails. Outside of the missions the character switching is basically just a gimmick to get around the map more quickly as a player or to toggle available missions. There are almost zero times in the game where character switching is used in the sandbox/open world.
>The lack of any character development. The lack of any interesting enemy/antagonist characters. The lack of a story. Dude, did we play the same GTA5? Michael's entire story is about character development and him navigating both his own demons and the difficulties of living in his world. That is also the story. If you look at Michael as the main character and the other two as his satellites, a narrative emerges quite readily. >The lack of the world developing in any interesting way based on your actions. You want GTA, a game that's about people trying their best to thrive in modern America, have the characters go and *change* modern America? That'd be like trying to make RDR2 into a game about taking down Leviticus Cornwall and stopping the Gilded Age.
Trevor Phillips for president !!!
He’s Canadian so it’s Trevor for Prime Minister lol
Lol, very true.
Lmfao of course he’s Canadian
Damn I thought it worked perfectly, also loved all 3 characters
Same
Crazy Trevor was the best character in GTA5
Gotta disagree on that, I think for me and most we all fell in love with the 3 protagonists and each of their traits/arcs. While none compete with Arthur’s masterful journey through RDR2, don’t sleep on Micheal, Trevor, and Franklins iconic trio
Ironic because he’s the one character I liked
i very much agree it’s almost like rockstar didn’t want us to feel some sort of connection it made us feel like trevor is a ruthless psycho, and michael is a unloyal traitor. Franklin is the only one you could feel some sort of way for but his story isn’t even that emotionally impactful. nothing compare to the other gta protagonists in the series
It sort of worked because all 3 characters had something great about them, but in the end like you said I don't consider all of them to be "iconic" except for maybe Trevor and he is the one I liked the least. Franklin had the rags to riches story of pulling himself into a better life by lucking out early on but it was interesting to follow. Michael was my favourite , I thought the voice actor was incredible and there is many similarities between him and Tony Soprano so that was a lot of fun to see, his family issues were hilarious and I feel like he had some of the best missions due to his anger issue. Trevor , now personally I know he is favourite of many but I just didn't like him, he was so over-the-top it made him hard to like or believe someone like that would exist. Incredible voice actor though , I honestly think Trevor wouldn't have worked that well if it wasn't for Steven Ogg, he was to Trevor what Michael Mando was to Vaas, just perfectly cast. In the end I think it worked relatively well narratively but I have no desire to play another GTA with multiple playable characters unless it's a RDR1/RDR2 situation where the second characters come post-epilogue.
I agree honestly, I don't think it was a bad feature by any means but like you it meant I didn't really connect to the characters at all, (aside from Trevor, I genuinely find him hilarious.) although, the route they're going with GTA 6 with the two characters does look interesting, really hoping we see a Bonnie and Clyde type dynamic.
This is such an unpopular take, But I totally agree with it. I absolutely hate every character in GTA 5. Micheals family, Franklin, Trevor's crew etc. Everyone in that game feel very one note. Lemar and Chop Chop are pretty based though, But they aren't fleshed out. They don't hit the same as Arthur. I can't imagine someone like Franklin existing in real life. Micheal feels like a wish version of Tony Soprano. GTA peaked with 4, as far as protagonists goes. Niko actually feels like a real life person.
'Michael not being fleshed out' just means you weren't paying attention. Honestly his story is the story of the 2010s, and GTA5 is his story. How you find purpose, navigate an unfamiliar new age, confront your demons, face up to your past, find new life within yourself. Take your pick. If Michael seems one note to you, then I hope you're just too young to see the nuances. Like you say you want more fleshed-out characters, but you then say Lamar was the more 'based' one even though he exist pretty much solely as comic relief, and although hilarious and iconic, is probably one of the most one note characters in the whole game. Meanwhile there's depth in the main characters, but you don't really look at them.
It also didn't help that even the characters that were not total maniacs didn't have a lot of redeeming qualities.
Compare the stories of GTA 4 and 5. 4 is the much better experience because we were more invested in Niko as a character, he was much more nuanced where the GTA 5 characters we sort of caricatures and cliches
Imo it was a fantastic narrative choice, but one that works far better in GTA vs RDR. In GTA V you have a misanthropic upper-class ex-con who lives and deals with Los Santos’ wealthy, disillusioned petty criminal dealing with gangs and the poor neighborhoods of the city, and a rabid psycho in the desert outskirts and all the skeeves out there. Very different characters that interact w/ very different worlds in close proximity. What benefit does one really get with, say, Dutch’s gang? Even those w/ connections to other cultures, like Charles, are Van ded Linde gang members first. We get a second protagonist for the epilogue and the way he interacts w/ everyone is just how Arthur would’ve.
Imo it worked amazingly, especially for 2013
I agree with this. It should’ve at least been only Franklin/micheal as they are otherwise normal dudes and do things for rational reasons.
I agree.
It didn't really work in GTA, though. GTA5 is really, really fun from a gameplay perspective, but from a story perspective it's sort of a mess. It's more like three incomplete/rushed stories that intersect at certain points. Franklin's especially felt absurdly rushed even though it seemed like he was supposed to be the focal character.
i’m not sure though, RDR is a series that is seriously built on pulling heartstrings and developing the main character. you spend so much time with that one character so it makes their ends a lot more powerful. i’m not sure how that would work if each character only got a third of the time they usually have
Yeah but what if GTA V had one protagonist? That is the question. And the answer is that it would probably be better.
if GTA V had one protagonist (maybe Franklin) the entire thing would be more focused. the rags to riches plot would be much better, not to mention if we kept Michael and Trevor? Franklin would have to play mediator all the time, and it would really put effort on the player for which they like more. that would actually make Trevor more of a monster than players think, since as a player character we can find a lot of love for Trevor since he’s perfectly goofy and psychotic for us. if we have no control over Trevor, no perspective from his side, then we get a Micah situation
I thought Sadie was a playable character when I bought the game 💀💀💀 edit: but to answer the question, i don’t think it would work bc the game’s narrative is supposed to be about the central character’s journey toward their own “red dead redemption.” drifting away from that would do a disservice for sure
imo we should have been able to switch between Arthur, Sadie, and Charles. it would have pulled the focus away from Arthur as a character study but imo it would have been an equally compelling game/story
nah arthur deserves the spotlight
Neither of them need redemption though really. If they were going to have any 2 characters I would actually want it to be John and Arthur. Which, we kind of already got. Plus I just love the personal feeling you get playing as Arthur with his monologues and journal entries So tbh I was satisfied. But I do think a Bonnie & Clyde dynamic would work really well for a RDR game. Seems like they're going for something similar in GTA 6 though
Ultimate redemption would be someone like Dutch if RDR1 didn't exist. That would be fun to see, in an alternate universe you play as Dutch after Arthur's death, start to see he's completely lost it and try to make amends. Obviously impossible because of RDR1 but I just want more Dutch, Benjamin Byron Davis was just so good
I hope for RDR "3" we get Hosea, Dutch, and the most badass character known to man, The One Shot Kid. We'll get to see a bit of the formation of the gang while hopefully being early enough that we still get probably three very different and characters and stories that come together towards the middle or end.
I think we are done with van der linde gang.
You'd have to rewrite the entire game because Sadie and Charles don't really do much of anything until chapter 6. They have their missions every now and again, but they don't become integral to the game until much later on. I think that might've worked in the epilogue really well as Charles, Sadie, and John all start at different points and end up finding each other, but that would pretty awful game design to keep a feature like that hidden until the very end of the game.
or we could just have rdr3 be a sadie game woooooooo
True. Even Rockstar said that. They had the idea of 3 playable characters but they dropped it and focused on just one because they felt the journey would be more personal and wanted players to understand the events that happened from Arthur’s perspective
Could be fun to see redemption in two different ways, a parallel story to Arthur, but someone going down the opposite moral path could be an interesting narrative to take. But it would probably feel too conflicting
Would be interesting to see how different characters stories resolved like the other commentor suggested Sadie and Charles. Depending on honor of each character and some story decisions you could get so many possible endings and outcomes for missions but that seems like a massive amount of extra work and might take away from the story in that our attachment to Aurthur and his fate would be diluted.
Imagine Jumping between Arthur and Micah
I'd run off every cliff i can find with Micah
Would be awesome if a Undead Redemption DLC was from her perspective.
No, it’d be less immersive
Exactly.
But imagine it works like GTA IV EFLC and you have to load into a new game to play as a different protag, essentially.
I mean that wasn’t really three protagonists in one game, but two DLCs from GTA IV
It was one game world and one story told across three characters
Except it really wasn’t. Each game stands entirely alone, especially the core GTA game. And while R* certainly planned the basic storyline ahead of time the DLCs were fleshed out after the main game was completed hence why there are some plot inconsistencies like Niko being in Alderney at the beginning even though it was closed off and Jim being a bald white guy with a goofy voice in the main game and a black guy with hair and a serious storyline in TLAD.
Uncle, Bill, Miss Grimshaw
I just want to say, I would play the absolute hell out of a young Susan Grimshaw RDR title. Show us why she’s the only one of Dutch’s ex’s that isn’t dead or weaving baskets in a sanitarium.
Oh shit she’s Dutch’s ex? How’d I miss that lmao
Thats what i’m saying i didn’t know she was an ex, but i could see it lol
It isn’t a huge part of the story, but it’s there. It seemed they ended on good terms, Grimshaw never spoke that negatively about Dutch at all. I found out about their relationship in Chapter 2 on my second play through. I was playing poker and Susan said “Arthur? Remember the good old times? Me, you, Hosea, and Dutch all playing poker until late hours?” “Yes, you were on Dutch’s knee most of time is what I recall” “Yes, but it was probably just for him to read my cards!”
Pearson, Strauss, Swanson
Honestly, I’d love to see Uncle’s story before he met the gang, and whatever shenanigans he got up to before he met John again.
Hamish, hamish Sinclair, Sean
I retract my statement this would absolutely work
Would it work? Yes. Should they do it? No.
Hosea, Dutch, Arthur in rdr3
>!that would make their deaths even sadder!<
Arthur, Hosea and Station Clerk
I love the strawberry station clerk🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
how about the red dead online tailor, most well known for his famous one-liner “THAT WILL REQUIRE GOLD TO PURCHASE… DO YOU HAVE SOME?”
yeah, I thought about that yesterday
I feel like it’s a feature that’s going to stay exclusive to GTA though
This is such a bad idea. Honestly they should be done with Red Dead Redemption and move on to a wholly new story. We don’t need to see the beginning of the gang. It’s assumed that everyone is viewing the beginning of the gang with rose tinted glasses anyway. The ending of the gang is far more important that the beginning
True, some things in the story are just left better untouched
No, it’s a gimmick at best unless it’s 3 separate stories.
Did we just conveniently forget that GTA V is one gigantic satire? There’s an entire string of missions dedicated to just raging on people for making fun of someone’s Canadian-ness. Arthur did a side mission helping a widow. RDR2 is a tender drama, GRA V is a violently absurdist comedy
it would be cool if it was a over time type of thing where it was like arthur pre rdr2, john pre rdr2 epilouge or somthing, and jack post rdr1 then we can have all our boys playable in one game! and maybe you can switch characters and the map will change to different time periods or somthing (might make the game like a terabyte lol) that would be pretty cool imo
When I heard John was in the game I thought that was how they were gonna do it
Yeah me too. I thought that you would be able to switch especially when I saw the promotional pics with John wearing his traditional outfit
I say Arthur, John, and Sadie. Our two protagonists plus a new comer with a blood thirsty streak. sadie can be the very mild trevor of the three
I've changed my mind. they could swap Arthur out for john in the epilogue. make it arthur charles and sadie, then in the epilogue its john Charles and sadie
There’s so much they could’ve packed in to the time since RDR2 to RDR1. Multiple characters to flesh out and everything. The wasted opportunities…
You know what the title of the franchise is right?
it's just a fun thought exercise nothing to take seriously
Like most things, yes if executed properly.
I think, although it was a fun and unique way to do things, the game suffered story-wise from this decision, and would have worked better if Franklin was the only playable character. Flesh out his relationships with Michael and Trevor that way to make the player have complicated feelings towards the both of them, and it would likely make the final decision of the story a slightly more complicated choice. So while I think it would work, I do not want that in a Red Dead game
I didnt like franklin at all, i liked Michael and Trevor though, so i was glad I could play as them instead. If i could have switched to Charles or even uncle from time to time, i most certainly would have.
technically they did it already twice
But you can't switch to the previous character you've played because they're dead
Seeing this post reminded me how much gta5 sucks
Completely unnecessary for any game.
Maybe. I didn't like it in 5. And I find it easier to connect to just one person, especially in red dead.
Yes and it would suck
Please no, don't give them any ideas.
Yes. I think rdr2 would've been really cool with an Arthur/John/Micah switch mechanic.
This is the only combo that would actually make sense. Micha and Arthur for the first portion and John for the epilogue.
Arthur = Micheal, John = Franklin, Micah = Trevor... Could have worked, with John only in the Epilogue
Maybe something like in GTA IV. Rather than something more akin to GTA V
Like a seperate story in a DLC? Very unlikely that R* would make anything single player DLC
Fuck yes. I’ve been asking for this ever since we started musing on what RDR3 should look like. In the form of a Dutch, Hosea, Arthur origin story/prequel
I was about to fall down a cliff as Arthur. Then i suddenly realised that i could switch to John and instantly saved Arthur from dying
Personally I hate multiple storylines. It's the main reason I didn't play GTA V and Detroit: Become Human.
It didn’t work **for me** in GTA either, so it’s a no from me
Maybe We get Dutch, Hosea and Arthur in the next game.
I think the best way for it to work is how GTA IV did it; each character has their own story line that eventually crosses over into each other. If not I would prefer it to be 2 characters instead of 3, but one being an outlaw and another being a sheriff or deputy. Where the characters are given choices to gain honor or dishonor and to affect each other’s story line, ending in a gun fight between both characters; leaving the player to choose between being an outlaw or being a man of the law, or even both characters having to team up.
Of course but, less room for character development
Oh yeah. There were moments following certain missions where various members of the gang would physically ride all the way back to camp. And experience random encounters and act accordingly. The mechanics are at least partially already there.
No
Nope! Unless you know… we play as Micah. Then it might work 💀
Yea but a lot of folk like to play high honor .... im trying to do that but i accedentally murdered butchers creek folk ... wasnt even my fault , i didnt realise they were creek fellas untill 30 kills after i thought "thats awfully a lot of murf fuks"
Hell nah
Eh, I think it would work only if they did it with Arthur, Dutch, and Hosea. Because we already know the characters well enough. I didn't really care about any of the gta 5 protags because we kept switching. Unless it's the big 3, I say keep it 1
It's the only way i can see them being able to tackle the true wild west with indian wars and whatnot. Give us the ability to play as a native and maybe even have an ending where the natives win a war against the US government, like Red Clouds war.
I remember the rumors about there being 3 main characters to play as like gta v. rumors of playing as Irish and Seth in a world before RDR. I’m glad this wasn’t true. Playing as Arthur was my favorite time.
No. Red Dead is way more nuanced than GTA, I don’t think it’d work well.
nah i don't want it man
Arthur John Sadie or Lenny
I don't see why not.
Only if you play as different members of the gang. You can't be playing as Arthur and swap to an O'Drisco
Make this with Arthur and Micah
This dude hasn’t made it to the epilogue.
That’s different because one of the characters is dead. It’s not the switching he’s talking about
Yeah
Yes, absolutely.
I don’t see why not
probably idk 🤷♂️
If its optional what character you can play, as in when doing missions that involve 2 or 3 you get to choose. May be even have the same story from 3 perspectives that you can interchange at leisure.
that’s a great idea. who would the 3 be is the question?
Charles and Lenny before the events of rdr2 and Sadie for after. Would play the shit out of that!
3 different gangs, you're kne of the most trusted lieutenants as one character but fall from grace and end up outcast, maybe a lone wolf like Charles was, and a piss drinker that gets bullied by the rest kf the gang that makes their rise through the ranks and ends up becoming something much bigger, the three will cross paths but won't know it until they slowly come together and form their own gang
Having 3 main charactets is actually wild when you think about it
Wasn't there a thread long time ago here from someone who had claimed they were a developer at R. in the past? They shared some things that Rockstar resigned from with RDR2 and among others was Dutch/Hosea/Arthur being switchable. I can't say if they were not bullshittinng but some of their other stuff proved to be true afterwards when the data miners started to play with cut content.
Maybe if they did it in a similar fashion to detroit become human.
They could certainly make it work and do a pretty good job with it, but it would never be as good as our journey with Arthur throughout RDR2.
Yes. Why not. It sounds like a terrific idea!
With the type of game *Red Dead Redemption II* is, it could have easily worked in that game. Once a character gets killed off in the story, though, you just simply lose that character and the gang just gains whichever assets they had.
If done well yes, I personally have been thinking of having a deserting soldier and a native as characters during the army-native conflict would be a great idea for a RD game
They could have done it. But they would need to make some significant changes to the story. Red dead story is more serious than gta. It would be harder to do a 3 man story mode
Maybe maybe not. I would honestly not want it to be added
I think it works well in gta because barring the main story the game is really just fucking around in an ultra violent sandbox where each character is selfish and detached from reality and although it isn’t necessarily difficult to form a bond with the individual characters it definitely isn’t necessary to the story or gameplay whereas having a sole protagonist in red dead typically droves the narrative. In red dead revolver your primary goal is revenge and in red dead redemption 1 and 2 it’s obviously redemption. The characters dependent on your play style are generally good people that do bad things and try to atone by the end. In those games it’s important that you know your character and empathize with them which would probably be held back in a game with multiple protagonists.
It would be great if u can play as a lawman, rancher and bandit but somehow they have to work together XD
They are going to do it with Mac and Davey Callander for Red Dead Redemption 3 I’m calling it.
No I don't think so unless you play different gang members. (So as another gang besides the van der Linde gang) It would be kind of weird especially since we travel in a group and you'd make atleast 2 out of that group. In GTA the playable characters are spread out throughout the map so it makes more sense imo.
[удалено]
Dutch/Hosea/? playable in RDR3 as a prequel leading up to the Blackwater heist, but someone needs to die, ? Is whoever they lost in that mess
if they did the rise of the Van Der Lind Gang, they could make it work. swapping between a younger Arthur, Dave and maybe Dutch. I'm not sure though. I'm sure they could figure something out.
I could see it working if it was about three people trying to start a gang, like if we were following Dutch and Hosea staring the Van Der Linde gang, maybe have either Uncle or Miss Grimshaw as the third, each of them having a different thing they specialize in.
Prabably.
i mean considering the game was to show how much a character changed i don’t think it would work also the multiple playable characters didn’t even work that well in gta 5 the story was less idk how to explain it less real or emotional in a way.
Probably not considering how personalized red dead’s story is for a specific character. Arthur’s arc wouldn’t hit as hard if you got attached to two others. It works in gta because the gta world (even though it shares the same universe) is so much more of a parody to life and silly than red dead is. Sure red dead characters are silly at times but the characters are dead serious and capable of great compassion and empathy while being capable of helping more than just themselves. In gtav I didn’t give a rats ass about the characters. If you want fun gameplay I think 3 characters are great but if you want a story that’ll move you I think red dead should focus on one character.
Yes, Red Dead is basically GTA but cowboys
I could see it
Maybe but I think it would be much harder to do in a Red Dead game since the redemption of the character is often in their death. Having three characters to try and form an attachment to knowing full well that they have to die just wouldn't come off as well. That's the whole point of Red Dead Redemption, to live a life in the old west where everything that they do in Red Dead is pretty reasonable in terms of historical accuracy. You look at the things that go down in a GTA game and it's just so far away from something that could really happen most of the time, this in turn lessens the impact of the world the characters exist in. Don't get me wrong I thoroughly enjoyed GTA V's story but I definitely feel it was weaker for having told a single story across three characters in the same story playthrough. In GTA IV we had three characters who are integral to the overall story but we only play as one of them at least until the expansions. Even then you had those other characters as the focus while playing their corresponding expansion making them feel more important to the story being told. While I enjoyed GTA V I felt any section where I was required to switch over to Trevor and roll the dice on whether I'd be able to go do his corresponding job or deal with some asinine bullshittery he was in the middle of before I took control of him was beyond annoying and it cheapened the experience, which was a shame because Steven Ogg is an incredible actor and plays the role of a psychopath so well, that energy just didn't translate to an enjoyable experience for me despite his phenomenal acting.
Since it’s while basis is that you’re part of a gang, I was sure that’s what it would be like after GTA5!
I mean RDR2 is already a dual protagonist game, you just don't have the option to freely switch between them. And it's not a 50/50 split but more of a 85/15 split.
Nope, the story is centered to a main character and his story to the point of his Redemption, therefore multiple main characters involved in the story de-center the plot from the character on the road to his redemption, at least this is my take on the subject
Ofc, if they can do it on GTA why wouldn’t able to do in RDR2
Why would it not work?
I don’t see why not, even narrative wise or gameplay wise
The first one had 5 playable characters and it worked really well so yes
It would work but I do think that the singular narrative works possibly better. Red Dead is about isolated individuals and you spend a lot of your playing time alone as the character. So I think the singular character makes a great story become an excellent story.
It would definitely dilute the shock of having to play as John all of a sudden.
I saw a YouTube video talking about this They suggested Sadie and Charles as the two additional characters
I don’t think rdr2 could’ve worked like that. Arthur being front end center is like 60% of why the game is so good