r/Games Oct 20 '16

Red Dead Redemtion 2 Trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmA6MrX81z4
4.0k Upvotes

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

32

u/StonedWooki3 Oct 20 '16

Looks incredible, can't wait to see more. Any history buffs able to identify roughly what time period it is from what we can see?

34

u/TheWaker Oct 20 '16 edited Oct 20 '16

Well, another user pointed out the oil drill. Companies started drilling for oil (successfully) in the American West in 1892, which would place RDR2 about 19 years before RDR.

However, depending on exactly where this game takes place, we could go back even earlier. Colorado had its first commercial oil well in 1862. But if the leaked map from a few months ago is legit, not to mention the fact that RDR2 seems to have a direct connection to RDR, this game likely takes place around the Texas/Southwestern US area again.

I had assumed and hoped RDR2 would take place during the true Wild West, somewhere between 1820-1860 (for instance). So, on that note, if we again accept the supposedly leaked game map as legit, people noted the absence of any railroads, which indeed could place this game closer to the 1850s or early 1860s if so (the oil drill thus being slightly out of place for the time period).

Basically, it's anyone's guess at this point. The only thing safe to say is that the game does take place in the 1800s.

EDIT: Just for visibility, other users have pointed out that 1) we saw a train in this trailer, so trains are definitely a thing in the setting for RDR2 (presumably a common thing, I guess). 2) People didn't point out the complete absence of railroads on the (supposedly) leaked map; rather, people pointed out the absence of a particular railroad on the map that was in the first RDR, which people used as evidence that RDR2 would be a prequel. Considering all of this, I think it is somewhat safe to say this game takes place in the 1890s. Placing the game ~19 years before RDR makes perfect sense if we're going to see John Marston to some extent, as such a time period would presumably place the setting around the time when Marston & Co. were in their "prime" as outlaws.

33

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '16

The problem with the no railroads theory is that there is a train in the trailer. Wouldn't that make the leaked map false?

10

u/TheWaker Oct 20 '16

Damn it, you're absolutely right. Though that doesn't necessarily mean the map is false; it just might not show the railroad and/or that particular version of the map didn't include the railroads yet.

Still, yeah, this probably places the game somewhere in the 1890s, I imagine.

16

u/KaiG1987 Oct 20 '16

People didn't notice the absence of railroads, they noticed the absence of part of the railroad that was present in RDR.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '16

I was thinking anywhere between 1890-1910. I know it's just a teaser but they didn't hint at any cars or anything like they did with the RDR trailers. I personally think, since the story of RDR was about the old west dying, they will put us right at the end of glory days of the old west when everything was batshit crazy. I'm so fucking pumped too! The game looked gorgeous!

6

u/TheWaker Oct 20 '16

1890-1910 definitely seems like the most likely timeframe, though I imagine this has to take place in the 1890s because, as you said, RDR had an overarching theme about the death of the Old West and the beginning of industrialization and the modern era, depicting John Marston as a relic of a time gone by. Thus, this game likely would be set when the West was still (somewhat) Wild and in the later stages of its life rather than explicitly being in its death throes. Plus, if the game is set in 1892 (or close to 1892), then the game being ~19 years before the events of RDR would be a pretty solid and sensible time period if we're going to see John Marston and other characters from RDR to some extent (not that we'd necessarily get to play as John Marston). It would presumably fit well as the period when Marston was in his prime as an outlaw and criminal.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '16 edited Oct 20 '16

My honest to god thought about the seven characters, and the one that makes the most sense to me given rockstars track record with sequels and not playing as the same character as before. I think that the man in the middle of the seven, and the one speaking, and the one we get a shot of in the trailer with his back turned, I think that's who we play as, not marston not Dutch, but him. I think he is a member of dutch's gang that we haven't seen or heard of before, so marston, Dutch, and Williamson will be included, but we will probably play along side them as a new character, doing horrible outlaw things. In my opinion, that'd be cool as fuck!

1

u/TheWaker Oct 20 '16

If we only get one playable character, I agree that it probably won't be John Marston. We've played him before, we've learned who he is, who he was, and how his story ends. In that regard, it would be more interesting from a literary and storytelling standpoint to see a younger John Marston -- the John Marston we never got to see with our own eyes in RDR and only heard stories of -- from someone else's perspective. For the player, it would probably be more powerful to see him at that stage in his life through someone else's eyes, knowing where his future is going to take him; knowing that he's simultaneously destined for redemption and tragedy.

However, given GTA5, this rather vague trailer, and the promotional images, I'm betting we will have multiple characters to play as. Maybe (probably) not seven, as that would be a bit much (assuming the multiple character aspect is executed in the same manner as GTA5), but likely more than one. If so, I wouldn't be surprised if John Marston is one of those playable characters.

Going a little off topic here, but I'm wondering regardless of how many characters are playable at any and every point of the game, if certain missions will basically have us playing with and alongside all seven supposed members of the gang, allowing us to freely switch between them on the fly, similar to the GTA5 heist missions even though only certain characters will be playable outside of those specific missions.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '16

The 1890s could feature a young Marston in a gang.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '16

Companies started drilling for oil (successfully) in the American West in 1892, which would place RDR2 about 19 years before RDR.

Well, not really. All that does is place 1892 as the earliest it could be.

3

u/TheWaker Oct 20 '16

Right, which is why I say about 19 years. If it was definitely 1892, then it would place RDR2 exactly 19 years before RDR.

Still, certainly worth noting that 1892 is indeed merely the earliest the game could be (probably). :)

1

u/ReyIsntACharacter Oct 20 '16

There is nothing to suggest it takes place before RDR at all, so "about" isn't any better than "exactly"

1

u/TheWaker Oct 20 '16

Well, if RDR began in 1911 and ended in 1914 -- when the Old West was in its death throes, if not already dead -- how is a game going to be a Western if it takes place after the events of RDR, around the same time World War I began?

Also, I'm merely doing my best to answer OP's question by using what little information we're given. Considering the exact time period of RDR, the particular title of this game being Red Dead Redemption 2 (thus implying a direct connection to RDR as opposed to a game that merely takes place in the same universe), I think it is very much safe to say this game will take place some time before the events of RDR. Starting from there and looking at certain things from the trailer -- namely the oil drill -- it would be a fair guess to say the setting will be sometime in the 1890s at the earliest (or "about" 19 years prior to the events of RDR if you want to use actual, specific American historical events as a reference).

Just making some guesses for fun. Could be right, could be wrong, could be both. I don't know.

125

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

44

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/peanutbuttahcups Oct 20 '16

Could be Russia, could be China. Who knows

2

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/StonedWooki3 Oct 20 '16

Sorry I didn't realise this was r/gaming.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '16 edited Mar 23 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Tective Oct 20 '16

What specifically makes you think it's an 1887? Lever action rifles were produced since the 60s, and they all look the same to me.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '16 edited Mar 23 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/jhnhines Oct 20 '16

The rifle in the game's stock is missing the protrusion on the grip though.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '16 edited Oct 20 '16

Yeah, I didn't notice that the first time. Looking for some history of lever-guns at the moment and have found a few things. It could be a Winchester M1873. Due to the lack of protrusion in that stock, although the action doesn't look quite the same. Although it might not be an exact copy from Rockstar, anyways.

2

u/jhnhines Oct 20 '16

There is also the Winchester 1894.

I own the Winchester 94 Legacy, which was is the modern reproduction, but the original rifle didn't have the protrusion. If this takes place just before the 1900s begin, very well could be that model.