Rockstar Announces Red Dead Redemption 2 For 2017

Rockstar Announces Red Dead Redemption 2 For 2017
To sign up for our daily newsletter covering the latest news, features and reviews, head HERE. For a running feed of all our stories, follow us on Twitter HERE. Or you can bookmark the Kotaku Australia homepage to visit whenever you need a news fix.

Surprise! It was Red Dead Redemption 2, not Red Dead Revenge or Red Dead Westworld or a video game version of Seven Samurai. Just a plain old sequel. Information is thin on the ground right now, but here’s what we’ve got.

The game has been announced for a spring 2017 release, so around this time next year we can expect to sink our teeth into the newest installment of the Red Dead franchise. A trailer for the game will be dropping tomorrow at 2am AEDT for those who just can’t wait until next year to check it out. All this news came in the tweet that RDR fans have been waiting years for:

A short blurb has also been posted on Rockstar’s official page for the game:

Developed by the creators of Grand Theft Auto V and Red Dead Redemption, Red Dead Redemption 2 is an epic tale of life in America’s unforgiving heartland. The game’s vast and atmospheric world will also provide the foundation for a brand new online multiplayer experience.

Vague, yes, but promising.

What do you want from Red Dead Redemption 2? Tell us in the comments!

Comments

    • I’m assuming that ‘heartland’ means the US Midwest, which makes this being a sequel to RDR seem kind of unlikely. That game was set in 1911, and by 1911 the Midwest was pretty much settled and boring. The big influx of settlers through that area was in the 1880s, and by the 1910s it was a trickle because expansion had moved further south and west. It’s also well after the Civil War (1860s) and the Indian Wars (1790s) and by that point the Great Lakes states of the midwest were one of the world Industrial powerhouses, with Chicago as a massive rail hub and nearly a decade after Henry Ford set up his factory in Detroit and several years after the Model T started coming off the line.

      It’s an interesting period, but for me RDR’s appeal was that it absolutely nailed the feeling of the classic spaghetti westerns, down to the Ennio Morricone-style soundtrack. A sequel set in the Midwest would just not work for me. I don’t want Assassin’s Creed Syndicate shoehorned into Red Dead, I don’t want a major tonal or setting shift, I just want an actual sequel / prequel to RDR.

      • the map leaked ages ago, it’s a large area immediately north and east of Tall Trees and Great Plains.

        It’s by no means an accurate map of America, so it looks like it’ll have areas analogous to Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Louisana etc. New Bordeaux is confirmed.

        I also expect it to be a prequel instead of a sequel.. as RDR painted the Western Border states as the last bastion of the uncivilised cowboy and was the underlying theme of why Marston had to die.

        • Nowadays in the USA, when you ask about the ‘heartland’ it’s the Midwest, specifically the stripe through the middle of the country that starts with Minnesota across to Michigan and then down to Mississippi and Louisiana.

          Given that there’s a place in the leaked map that has the same name as Mafia III’s fake New Orleans (Louisiana) that seems like it fits pretty well too.

          EDIT: IMO as long as they go prequel and they stay away from the industrialized cities like Chicago and Detroit it’d probably work fine.

  • On the website the guy 1st on the left of the guy in the center looks a bit like Trevor from GTA. Might be wishful thinking but he’s already playing a cowboy in Westworld, maybe he’s in this too.

    • They’re not calling it Red Dead 2: Redemption 2. It is Red Dead Redemption 2. It’s like saying Forza Horizon 3 should be called be called Forza 28 or whatever they’re up to now.

    • try to understand the heretic franchise or the dark forces franchise for sequel names and then suddenly red dead redemption 2 seems par for course

    • Despite the fact that the title is suggesting a sequel to the “Redemption” franchise as opposed to the Red Dead series – if they called it “Read Dead 3” there would be so many confused people because they never knew about Red Dead Revolver, and even to people who do know about it, they’re only related by title, not story.

      • of course, then you just accept that Red Dead Redemption wasn’t a sequel to Red Dead Revolver, as ‘it was set in a different universe’ according to Rockstar themselves, it just used the name ‘Red Dead’ in the title, more of a property appropriation if anything.

    • The second game wasn’t called Red Dead 2: Redemption, for good reason. It was a completely different game. Now this is a sequel to Red Dead Redemption, hence the 2.

    • I guess putting /wank on the end of your comment doesn’t make it obvious enough that its tongue in cheek.

      Lesson learned!

    • PS4 remaster would be ideal for me. I was a poor PC pleb last generation and only ever played it on my girlfriend at the times console, never actually finishing it.

    • I relived it the other night – I put the disc in the PS3, selected source 3 on the TV (source 4 is the PS4. I am logic.) and loaded the game.

      Wanted to show the wife a very little of it, as she’d seen an article about how the writers had played RDR… She says “OK this makes sense!” 🙂

    • It hardly even needs it. XBO backwards compatibility gets rid of all the framerate drops, and I played it earlier this year and it’s still absolutely gorgeous.

    • It was a big enough point to put in the blurb they released im gonna assume a GTA Online style multi with 32 person open worlds to allow for just a shit tonne of ol fashioned gankery

          • I thought RDR was a spot on mix of single and multi player. Both worked for their own reasons, and didnt really get in each others way. If they just repeat that I’ll be a happy gamer.

          • Same with GTAV, sweet mix. Rockstar know what people want from them so I think it’s going to be a fun cowboy single player romp and then more of the same open world batshit shenanigans for multi. I assume they’ll strap on a few new bells and whistles for both, but not reinvent the wheel.

      • RDR already had a fun as hell multiplayer component, it was great honestly, if they expand upon it I’m all for it as long as the single player is fully fleshed out and we get some sort of Undead Nightmare 2!

    • I think it’s a huge possibility after their focus on GTA online, they’ve seen how much money they can make from multiplayer over singleplayer now…
      I really doubt they’d ignore the singleplayer aspect entirely but it wouldn’t surprise me if they phoned it in a bit (compared to their usual standard) so they could put more time on the multiplayer.

  • I doubt this will be coming out on PC. 🙁

    iirc… R* San Diego who was the main studio that made RDR1 said that they will never release a game for PC or something alone those lines.

  • i wonder if ever there will be a game about Australia’s colonisation with like ned kelly type stuff it is not all that dissimilar from what i understand.

  • Listening to tripple J this morning about this. Was annoyed at the fact that they were shitting on it because of the lack of “female” silhouette characters in the teaser poster.

    FFS – please don’t do this to us. Please don’t get all SJW on this. Please don’t get all Anita Sarkeesian

    Just for once let us enjoy a game for being what it is.
    I’m getting sick of this constant PC bullshit being pushed by everyone.

    * I’m just fed up lol.

    • So JJJ prefers revisionist equality to historical accuracy… bloody hell I love a lot of the ABC does but sometimes they make me wonder

      • Seriously? You’ve never heard of Calamity Jane? Rose Dunn? Pearl de Vere? Etta Place? Belle Starr? Annie fuckin’ Oakley? The wild west was filthy with kickarse gun-totin’ women. Hell, the first RDR had its share of them, just not as playable characters. The only revisionists here are the Gamergate numpties trying to write them out of history.

          • I like Kotaku comments because of the calibre of it’s commenters.

            So I dislike when trollish people with a political agenda derail a factual counterpoint.

            As for your childish insult, I’m not impressing anybody. This is a slightly older thread so the only one who will see that comment is you, I called out your poor attack and that’s that. Grow up or else go troll your hatred somewhere else.

          • political agenda
            ^

            Yeah that’s the thing, you’re one of the reasons why gaming gets so much criticism now days.

            Sit back and let those who have no actual genuine interest in gaming tear it apart for their own politically correct self righteous views.

            I’m not going to sit back and let them destroy the very thing we all enjoy and love just because they feel the need to critisise a game for the lack of female characters or any other trivial “issue” they find that offends somehow personally offends them.

            I’m just excited to play another Red Dead Redemption game, that’s it :).

          • Have to agree with Poweredbyme here, he actually makes a very good point which you can’t seem to comprehend.

  • @alisontheteemo

    Someone complained that it was pure historical accuracy that there’s no women. Someone else gave real examples to counterpoint that and @poweredbyme decided to ignore the facts and start slinging names.

    Where was his point there?

    I’m not the reason gaming gets criticism, I’m open minded and keen for new ideas. I wasn’t going to comment on the lack of women in the poster because I don’t want to get into arguments with Internet troglodytes who don’t want any women in their clubhouse.

    I also don’t know how healthy attacking every creator who doesn’t specifically diversify is because I can see there’s some nuance there.

    I do however think that adding more variety and diversity is a good thing. I’d like to play as a bad ass woman in one of these Rockstar games, getting to live out their different characters is fun I’d like them to push that.

    Luke Cage was an amazing show in part because it focused on a cultural slant that is usually glosses over in mainstream media, one I had only a very basic understanding of.

    Give me more variety in my art, and stop crucifying anybody who suggests that is a good thing.

Show more comments

Comments are closed.

Log in to comment on this story!