#rdr3

Everyone assumes a third game would be about Jack Marston, but I think it should be a prequel where you play as Dutch.

Not because I want to see Blackwater.

Because I think the series is secretly a trilogy already.

Dutch is Red.

Arthur is Dead.

John is Redemption.

Dutch's story isn't about dying. It's about becoming the man we meet in Red Dead 2. He ends the game red with anger at the world wanting revenge. It could be a slow burn from the nice smart version of dutch that made everyone in the gang trust him and slowly he changes after each death and becomes the man he is today. Which would explain why already in chapter one hosea was talking about how dutch was changing which means he was changing already before red dead 2.

Arthur's story is about living with death. As the gang all dies and arthur realises soon he is going to die he realises mortality is a painful thing and tries to change only to realise he can't fully run away from his life and chooses to spend the last of his days trying to make sure John can before he too is dead.

John's story is about earning redemption. He tries to start a family, live on a ranch, run away, kills the people keeping him tied to his past then dies sacrificing himself to save his family. Its not seeking forgiveness like arthur, its actually trying. Thats Redemption.

And the final scene of a Dutch game couldn't and shouldn't be Dutch dying.

It should be Hosea looking at him after Blackwater and realizing that the man he's known for twenty years has changed.

Like a big blow out of the last mission of Blackwater the gang is in shambles and Dutch stands there with a face like he doesn't care already planning what he will do next and the camera pans to hosea noticing that Dutch has changed and he doesn’t care about the people anymore, just revenge and anger, Red.

aka, Jack is fine, actually

The main reason why I dislike the idea of RDR3 with Jack as the protagonist (or even just Jack as a major character) is the high possibility that he'd have to die.

RDR has always had that strong Redemption-With-Death thing, and that's fine. It works really well in the case of Arthur, lesser so with John but I more-or-less get the idea behind it. RDR has it's protagonists' redemptions concluded with them dying. And I just... have no interest in seeing Jack die?

Mainly because it's a super unsatisfying conclusion to the Marston story. Both games have this concept of fighting so the Marstons can make it (in RDR1 that's pretty much John's only motivator, in RDR2 it's a huge factor in chapter 6) and I feel like having Jack die would almost invalidate that in a way? We've fought so hard to let this family, and Jack especially, make it out, and then... he's just gonna die, too? Idk, it feels unsatisfying! At least John's and Arthur's deaths, while pretty grim to play, were earned by the story, but I just can't see how killing Jack would be justified after all the hell we've gone through so he lives.

And in all honesty? I don't think Jack's "doomed" by the story, so to speak. The 1914 section is lonely and depressing and you're playing as a recently orphaned teenager who's bitter and violent and angry at the world. Can you blame the guy? He has not known stability his whole life, he didn't have a house until he was twelve, he was kidnapped by the government at sixteen, they killed his dad and his uncle and indirectly his mom and he sought revenge and he deeply regrets it. And he's not even 20.

This doesn't mean that he's a tragic hero or whatevs who's doomed to die horribly, he's a kid and he’s never known stability and he’s never been truly comfortable with his lot in life and as soon as he was, they killed his dad!!

He's going to be angry and violent!! Him seeking out revenge on the guy, who need I repeat, killed his dad, doesn't really imply Rockstar need to put him down like a dog. Is Jack killing Ross him falling back into the cycle of violence? Yes, yes it is, and I think a satisfying conclusion would be Jack struggling and failing but retrying to right himself and become the person he once wanted to be. That feels way more fitting to me.

Because I feel like we all get bogged down with Jack's whole 1914 depression and cycle of violence arc, and we kind of forget that without the 1914 section, Jack's story has primarily been about hope and love and innocence and breaking cycles. Jack has always been associated with hope and ESPECIALLY the breaking of cycles. Back in RDR1 we wouldn't have John and Abigail discussing how he was going to do something better than them otherwise. And yeah, there's the whole contradiction that Jack does end up falling down that path, which is tragic and it's sad— but I just don't see how that means that's the rest of Jack's future right there.

He's not doomed. He’s NINETEEN YEARS OLD. He has time to right his wrongs.

And RDR2 has always been much more of a hopeful game than RDR1, whether that's just in-universe, or because of the timeline or if it's Rockstar wanting to take the series in a different direction, I don't know. But RDR1 was cynical as hell whereas the sequel is such a tonal shift, it makes me think that the series has gone in a much less pessimistic direction. And RDR2 is full of hope as a theme and it's associated SO much with Jack:

The most common greet-greet-greet dialogue I get with the kid is the "Don't turn into to me" one. There's so many discussions of the gang hoping Jack won't turn out like them, and I feel like that's gotta be deeper than the writers giving a depressed nudge to the audience who know how Jack's story "ends".

That journal entry after Fisher of Men where Arthur discusses how Jack could find something better and move on with his life doesn't seem to be there for the sole purpose of dramatic irony, that doesn't fit with the tone Rockstar is going with at this part of the story. (There is absolutely place for dramatic irony in RDR2— the whole plot with Arthur, Dutch, and John relies on us knowing the first game.) But I never felt like Jack's RDR2 story relied on us knowing how he ended up. RDR2 is Pro-Jack as hell.

AND!!! Red Dead Redemption as a series has always had us looking out for Jack. The bulk of RDR1 is us doing stuff to bring him home. RDR2 has a lot of us doing stuff to bring him to safety. Rockstar may be bitter bastards, but they’re not so bleak as to kill off the kid the whole game is about looking after.

Jack is meant to be the one who breaks the cycle, and I don't think him killing Ross in RDR1 and becoming an outlaw at only 19 with literally his whole life ahead of him and pre-established other goals and aspirations that are mentioned ALL THE TIME means he's doomed by the narrative to die young like those who came before him.

Events leading up to Blackwater–

Yes it was crazy I'm sure, but what entrance does it have for you to want to play a WHOLE another game about it??? Just to play the massacre in the end? Really? You shoot many of people in both games already, and for reasons much more interesting. What massacre have we NOT caused.

Mac/Davey-

I couldn't see why people care. Two side characters you never meet, just two other gun slingers. Not significant at all for a whole game.

Young Arthur/John-

Why you'd want to wait maybe 10 years to just play as John when he was a kid. It's going to be the same game if not less interesting if you're playing as a teenager. Rough childhood, meeting Dutch and Arthur would be cool...but seriously? You meet them and learn to shoot guns? I could lowkey care less about them as kids meeting Dutch. I would be a cool small game or something similar...but for the big three??? Nuh uh

Young Dutch-

I hurts me to say this a little bit...but you would wait for years just to see Dutch and Colm start their feud, see a few gang members join and then not lead up to anything GREATLY significant...? No sir

Jack Marston-

AND I WILL NOT ALLOW ANYONE ELSE

COME ON ROCKSTAR

DON'T BE SCARED

the best option is to the "the traitor". there is a throwaway line said by arthur at some point early on, about how dutch doesn't allow guns in camp "except that one time but that guy was a traitor".

maybe he was a traitor, or maybe he just saw through dutch first. tie it in with annabelle, with colm's brother--hell, maybe he WAS colm's brother, maybe the rivalry with the o'driscolls isn't as old we're led to believe, maybe they used to work together. bring in isaac and eliza, maybe dutch had a hand in their deaths, inadvertently or directly, maybe the traitor was there for it. let it end in a duel, against arthur, because this version of arthur still has faith.

it'd be far enough in the past for a whole new cast of characters. maybe we see dutch without hosea, because hosea is with his wife--maybe we see how dutch pulls him back in, maybe we're responsible for executing it as the "traitor". we meet annabelle, see the reality of that relationship--was it really love or has dutch just put her on a pedestal because she died, did she die because dutch started to looking elsewhere and stopped paying attention. we meet a young arthur, barely recognizable from the arthur we know--more reminiscent of sean than anyone else, always getting himself into trouble, always chasing after a girl (eliza, mary, abigail, mary again, eliza) and needing saving. this arthur doesn't have a scar on his chin, but we see how he gets it at some point in the story. we meet an even younger john, not quite as young as jack, but a scrawny little feral teen who follows arthur and the "traitor" around like a puppy dog. we see another side of susan, a softer side, because she's younger, too, and still beautiful, and we see it when we meet abigail for the first time--younger than we've ever seen her, barely more than a kid herself, in need of a family. we meet all the names we know but never met--jenny, the callander boys. there's a few familiar faces too--bill and uncle, most likely. maybe even a brief brush with micah.

and it culminates with arthur pulling the trigger, because arthur being the one to do it makes the most sense, has the most complex emotional payoff. and then we play as arthur, years later, in the epilogue. and maybe eliza is still alive and the goal is to make money to send back to his son and the mother of his child, maybe we see that arthur was just like john at some point, an absent father, maybe reluctant one, one that tried his best when he didn't have a clue what he was doing or how to reckon with the life he chose to live and the life he brought into the world. and maybe this is juxtaposed by abigail being pregnant, and maybe the birth of jack runs parallel to the loss of Isaac, and Arthur almost leaves until John does first--and so Arthur stays as the gang makes their way towards Blackwater.

Everyone has covered this topic extensively, so I fear I won’t add much to this. Yet, I still choose to yap on it.

Personally, the most satisfying story would be exploring more of the origins of the gang and highlight the dynamics that set the wheels in motion that result in Arthur/John seeking redemption. Playing as Dutch and getting more insight into what values were instilled in them during their teens. Switching to Arthur at the end rather just before Blackwater or during.

I underground people criticize this direction since Dutch doesn’t find redemption (or even seek it), but his involvement in Arthur’s life is a big part of why he’s able to reflect in his journal and eventually do a loving act for John. Arthur’s fate was sealed the moment they met, but how he got there was shaped by the environment he grew up in. This story isn’t just about gaining redemption, it’s also about the path in which you walk to gain it. Dutch/Hosea influenced Arthur’s path. Arthur influenced John’s path. John influenced Jack’s path.

In my opinion, Sadie and Charles don’t need redemption so there isn’t really a story there. And while Jack’s story is easily set up for more, the time period doesn’t allow for it. I don’t just mean the fact it wouldn’t be western themed, but the 1910s-30s were infused with corruption. Without digressing too much (and buying myself more time to think about it lol), the type of redemption Arthur/John fought for is dead by the 1900s. Maybe it has to do with how rigid life becomes in those years, the growing expectation for everyone to live identical lives with kids and marriage and a factory job and and. Regardless, I don’t feel there’s room to move his character forward and I honestly enjoy the ambiguity after he gets revenge. Maybe it set him on a path towards redemption, or maybe that was his redemption.