Red Dead Redemption is a "Permanent Franchise" Says Take-Two

[Therumancer]

I think they should just let RDR stand on it's own. If they want to do another sandbox western, then so be it, but they shouldn't try and turn this one into a franchise with prequels, sequels, etc...

To be honest I'm kind of weird, but if I was going to do something like this I'd want it to be something similar to "Deadlands". After all they did a pretty interesting undead/horror expansion for RDR, Steampunk is popular, and with games like "Saint's Row 4" and "Infamous" we're beginning to see how special powers and such can be made to work in a sandbox setting. While perhaps not quite that superhuman, doing something with a cowboy who slings spells along with lead and winds up fighting a wide array of monsters and mad steampunk science could work.

Of course then again I've still been waiting for someone to actually make a AAA Sandbox horror game, sort of like what "Alan Wake" was supposed to be when it was first mentioned. "Deadly Premonition" came close, but the quality was... umm... lacking, even if the writing and concept was great. Nothing to do with RDR just thought I'd throw that out there.

 

[Oathfish]

"something 2K Marin will be responsible for shepherding going forward"

Ladies, Gentlemen, we're about to witness one of the most innovative, intelligent, and important game franchises be run into the ground.

Now, I understand that some people consider Bioshock 2 good, even the best of the series, and as far as I can tell that seems to be a bias driven by a tightening of the combat system which - to be fair, was archaic in Bioshock 1 - but the story and atmosphere of 2 couldn't reach the levels of 1 or (my own pick for best of the franchise) 3 and thus the game didn't become much more for me than a diversion, something I enjoyed, but only in the moment.

By contrast 1 and 3 have stuck with me and I consider them from time to time, during my day, as one might a novel or great movie. Whether or not they always succeeded, the first and last in the series aspired to create something new and multi-faceted, and tackle concepts and ideas worth tackling - even though some might say they do not belong in a video game.

2 didn't do this, or at least I felt it didn't. And while I didn't hate it (hell, I own it and have played it twice) it in no way stands as an equal to the others, even if it might be funner to play.

In short.

I am not pleased with this decision.

A new Red Dead, however?

This is great news for all

 

[Chaos Isaac]

Honestly, I would prefer Red Dead Redemption not getting a direct sequel (it ended perfectly) but I would love to see the series continue, because its fun as can be.

Particularly as RDR was very much an end-of-an-era story. A prequel in the heyday of the West I would really love to see, on the other hand.

It's fairly likely it's not a direct sequel. I mean, Red Dead Redemption was following after Red Dead Revolver and I don't think anything in the games connected to one another.

 

[Something Amyss]

[
It doesnt need one but to me another western like it would be much apreciated in the future (not exactly right now, give the "next" gen a few more years).

For all purposes it doesnt need to be related at all to John Marston, it just needs to be an open world game in a western setting.

Well, it's not like Marston was explicitly related to Red from the first game, either.

Or Red Dead Revolution, where you play as John's grandfather, who was also Ben Franklin's sidekick.

Hopefully, he meets up with an angel disguised as a French nobleman sympathetic to their cause. Maybe we'll finally get to read his manifesto on the right to choose.

Sorry, been reading a completely different piece of historical fiction based on the revolution.

>.>

With any luck it will be a "sequel" in the same vein as GTA; less a direct story continuation and more a series of games set within the same kind of world. I'd happily play that, even though I think the story of the Marstons is effectively done with.

I'll be honest, I'd probably play any Red Dead Sequel. But it would be better if they didn't try and stretch out the Marston storyline.

 

[Lightknight]

Ah, yes, "permanent franchise".

Clearly a sign of great things to come.

Oh, and continuing a series after the people who made it good have moved on. Yes. Excellent. Because we all know that Bioshock 2 was the best entry in that series, right?

[sub][sub]Cue me being quoted by one of those deviant nutcases who really did think B2 was the best of the series.[/sub][/sub]

Bioshock 2 stunk badly but Infinite at least came up with its own soul and a good story again.

Here's the thing, both of these are good worlds with so much that can be done to enable us to experience them in new ways. There's no reason not to try. If they utterly ruin the games and universes (like you and I suspect they will), then it will just be a wasted title in a sea of bad games. If they succeed, then we will benefit.

So it's a either meaningless or a win for us as consumers. It does me no harm that there's a million assassin's creeds if I don't play them. But the people that like them benefit. So what do I care about studios having the "audacity" to continue profitable franchises? Especially ones I might like.

 

[jdogtwodolla]

Red Dead Redemption is a "Permanent Franchise" Says Take-Two

"Red Dead is a permanent franchise" in the same vein as Grand Theft Auto.

Which one is it? are we going to get permanent spin offs of Redemption or are we going to get more Red Dead games?

Edit* I think I would like to see wild western approaches to places like the east and middle east. Or even that one idea call of juarez had where it was a modern day western. except do it better.

 

[SnakeTrousers]

In the wake of GTAV I'm a little worried that any future Red Dead games could easily wind up with the same design-by-committee feel. There wasn't anything that made GTAV stand out for me, it was just a really big crime-sandbox with above average physics.