I will swap the pc community a port of Planet Coaster for a port of RDR1&2 deal?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
SPOILERS: Dialogue glitch in Red Dead Redemption II fuels rumors of possible Red Dead Redemption Remaster DLC
- Thread starter Cranster
- Start date
A remake would also provide something Rockstar can continue to resell moving forward. RDR 1 is stuck forever on the 360 and PS3 and if R* could make a forward-compatible version that they just need to tweak to re-release in the future, that's a pretty solid incentive, especially given the environment and model work that's already been done.
Narratively speaking, you'd have an incomplete story in perpetuity as well. People who are just now getting game systems or only play on PC (when the RDR2 port hits) don't have the whole story.
Narratively speaking, you'd have an incomplete story in perpetuity as well. People who are just now getting game systems or only play on PC (when the RDR2 port hits) don't have the whole story.
Don't know how Jack is going to appear as an adult in RDO in the year 1898.
So, let's just consider the timetable.
1. It doesn't seem like it could be related to online in any way because online precedes the main story. This places all the events of Red Dead Online prior to 1899. Jack would be a small child or even an infant depending on when exactly Online takes place, so adult Jack would never appear here without some sort of time-bending shenanigans that seem unlikely.
2. It seems unlikely a time-skip to 1914, where Adult Jack is playable in Red Dead Redemption, was ever planned considering how little sense this would make in the story as presented. No amount of John Marston's story that precedes Red Dead Redemption would ever logically lead to Adult Jack being seen, heard, or played as. While we might be able to come up with some sort of plot contrivance (like some sort of vision quest or dream sequence) the shortest distance between two points is that this was just not part of the story and was never intended to be.
This would lead me to conclude lines recorded for Adult Jack had to have been done with some forward-looking design in mind. Nowhere in the current framework of Red Dead Redemption II's story would Adult Jack appear or be playable, so I would think this is indeed recording done for something that has not yet been implemented versus something that is cut from the base game.
If remaking Red Dead Redemption I as an expansion to RDR2 was always the intention, this would make sense. Considering the importance of RDR1 as a seminal video game and Rockstar's rumored inability to salvage the original game in to a remastered format, this could have always been part of the longterm plan for the series to allow RDR2 to become the definitive and complete Red Dead Redemption experience. This would help explain why so much of the Mexico terrain is also present in the game despite going unutilized narratively. I know I would like that very much and that's why a little recording like this ignites hope for exactly that.
However...
This is some mystery. Hopefully a PC version of the will yield more information on this game's development.
1. It doesn't seem like it could be related to online in any way because online precedes the main story. This places all the events of Red Dead Online prior to 1899. Jack would be a small child or even an infant depending on when exactly Online takes place, so adult Jack would never appear here without some sort of time-bending shenanigans that seem unlikely.
2. It seems unlikely a time-skip to 1914, where Adult Jack is playable in Red Dead Redemption, was ever planned considering how little sense this would make in the story as presented. No amount of John Marston's story that precedes Red Dead Redemption would ever logically lead to Adult Jack being seen, heard, or played as. While we might be able to come up with some sort of plot contrivance (like some sort of vision quest or dream sequence) the shortest distance between two points is that this was just not part of the story and was never intended to be.
This would lead me to conclude lines recorded for Adult Jack had to have been done with some forward-looking design in mind. Nowhere in the current framework of Red Dead Redemption II's story would Adult Jack appear or be playable, so I would think this is indeed recording done for something that has not yet been implemented versus something that is cut from the base game.
If remaking Red Dead Redemption I as an expansion to RDR2 was always the intention, this would make sense. Considering the importance of RDR1 as a seminal video game and Rockstar's rumored inability to salvage the original game in to a remastered format, this could have always been part of the longterm plan for the series to allow RDR2 to become the definitive and complete Red Dead Redemption experience. This would help explain why so much of the Mexico terrain is also present in the game despite going unutilized narratively. I know I would like that very much and that's why a little recording like this ignites hope for exactly that.
However...
3. Red Dead Redemption II takes place from 1899 to "several years later", where Adult Jack does not appear. But Jack does appear as an older boy, with his "adult Jack" voice actor. The character is never playable. It is possible Jack was at one point a playable character during the epilogue, perhaps while the Marston family was trying to go straight, and Jack would have had the option to greet and antagonize NPCs like any other playable character. This could have been experimented with to create some continuity between Jack's character in RDR1, who is not well developed, and his story in RDR2. Even a single mission where Jack has to deliver a package or something would require NPC greetings and, if this were cut, would explain why the recording exist and are tied to this functionality.
This is some mystery. Hopefully a PC version of the will yield more information on this game's development.
lol, how am I supposed to have an explanation? You don't have an explanation, I don't have one either. Everybody in this thread is speculating, demanding an explanation is a bit ridicilous. Maybe they were messing around, maybe they are leftovers from a different script, maybe they had an idea for an easter egg, maybe they have something special in mind for red dead online missions. No idea, but a dedicated SP expansion? No, I don't believe that one second.
I haven't read a single reply.
All I'm hear to do is to thank the OP for how he labeled the spoilers. He said, "Possible spoilers if you haven't reached the epilogue," and pointed out where in the game this is and marked the spoiler, and so I skipped it to watch whenever I get there. Thank you, OP! =)
All I'm hear to do is to thank the OP for how he labeled the spoilers. He said, "Possible spoilers if you haven't reached the epilogue," and pointed out where in the game this is and marked the spoiler, and so I skipped it to watch whenever I get there. Thank you, OP! =)
Well part of the red dead 1 map is in there so that would be awesome if there's a remaster made in the new engine with the beard growing... But no survival mechanics retrofit
We absolutely do have an explanation, it's the subject of this thread. You're just going 'nuh-uh!', and your guesses make no sense. They were not hiring and paying an actor to record lines and programming them to appear when you greet people because they were 'messing around', and no, they weren't making some hypothetical Jack easter egg that of course isn't in the game because you want it not to be. It's potentially possible that it could be for Online, but this refusal to believe that Rockstar will ever make a single player DLC ever again because one game didn't get them is just silly. Not to mention that the online mode is actually a reason why this remake is feasible - work they did in the remake would be reusable in Online. Or, to look at it the other way, if they fully remake the original locations for Online, it makes a remake cheaper and simpler to create.
This glitch alone isn't proof, but when you combine it with New Austin and Mexico having a whole bunch of work put into them despite not being needed for the story, AND the epilogue to the game starring John and being heavily about the creation of Beecher's Hope (rolling the costs of creating that location into the budget of the main game as well), along with it being well-known that a remaster of RDR1 isn't really possible due to the code issues, it all points to the same thing. It's not hard proof, but it's certainly evidence.
It's not like this could only be a DLC. It could just as easily be a full price remaster. Also how do you know it's a side project? It could be a different team working on it similarly to how LA Noire was remastered.
I don't think it's likely either as I can't see them being this cloak and dagger about it but it's hardly impossible to imagine.
Last edited:
It is stated on this thread's title and in the first embed video if I'm not mistaken
True but the conversation had moved on from that. Poorly worded on my part.
Give me that RDR1 remake with RDR2 mechanics.
....But give me a happy ending too. Playing through chapter 6 just makes me wish it all went differently for John, Abigail and Jack.
....But give me a happy ending too. Playing through chapter 6 just makes me wish it all went differently for John, Abigail and Jack.
This is a strawman. Half the reason why it's considered a possibility is because they wouldn't have to 'totally rebuild' RDR1. Much of the work is already done or half-done as part of the main game, not to mention work on the DLC potentially being reusable in the online mode. And nobody is saying they already did it. It would likely be currently in development.
Possible. West Elizabeth is in the game already. So is Mexico btw just missing NPCs and some towns. Unless Mexico map is for MP why would they go through the pain of re creating Mexico.
Wouldn't be a bad idea to rewrite some characters like Irish and Javier as well
Honestly all of RDR1 needs to be rewritten to make it mesh with RDR2. I'm shocked going back to it how goofy and GTA-esque most of it is.
I've always thought of 1 as being this mature game that really stood apart from Rockstar's usual titles but playing it again before RDR2 came out and I really put a lot of it out of mind to think that.
I would love a remaster of RDR1 if it meant we get some references to Arthur and the rest of the gang.
I want to play as Charles for any DLC
Or do the lead up to the Blackwater heist
But ill take any kind of dlc/expansion for the story I can get
Or do the lead up to the Blackwater heist
But ill take any kind of dlc/expansion for the story I can get
I think something of this scale is unheard of. Especially for a game that took as long as RDR2 did.
I think this would definitely be a remake more than a remaster. It would play like RDR2, in that it would have RDR2 mechanics (cores, horse death, etc) but the missions and more random encounters would be added in. They've done full modeling work for John that incorporates all these changes already. They've already redone the entire map from the first game, save Mexico, which is clearly in progress. They've remodeled and brought back V.O.'s for characters like Jack and Bonnie (who is in Online) as well.
This gives them them the opportunity to streamline or revisit some things from the first game that don't mesh with the sequel. Lose some of the tutorialization with Bonnie (no need to learn what a lasso is), get rid of some of the brainless gatling gun sequences in Mexico, etc. Present the entirety of "Red Dead Redemption" as a fully-fleshed out story that can be put out on PC and consoles moving into the future.
I don't think that they would put out a remake that just uses the new graphics but then reverts the gameplay back to being exactly like the original game. Too much work has been done with the new engine. So right now we're looking at mission implementation/scripting, re-rendering cutscenes, and completion of Mexico. Which is a shit-ton of work, certainly. But also gives them a 2019 release (provided they are on track for something like that) to bridge the gap between releasing a new game on the new consoles (like Bully 2, for example), and they've got a future-proofed version of the Red Dead saga.
This gives them them the opportunity to streamline or revisit some things from the first game that don't mesh with the sequel. Lose some of the tutorialization with Bonnie (no need to learn what a lasso is), get rid of some of the brainless gatling gun sequences in Mexico, etc. Present the entirety of "Red Dead Redemption" as a fully-fleshed out story that can be put out on PC and consoles moving into the future.
I don't think that they would put out a remake that just uses the new graphics but then reverts the gameplay back to being exactly like the original game. Too much work has been done with the new engine. So right now we're looking at mission implementation/scripting, re-rendering cutscenes, and completion of Mexico. Which is a shit-ton of work, certainly. But also gives them a 2019 release (provided they are on track for something like that) to bridge the gap between releasing a new game on the new consoles (like Bully 2, for example), and they've got a future-proofed version of the Red Dead saga.
Wouldn't remaking RDR1 with this engine be a MASSIVE undertaking?
Or are we talking about a remaster of the original engine?
Or are we talking about a remaster of the original engine?
I'd be all over it. Loved RDR2, but missed the first last gen and no option to play it on my hardware other than the bad PS3 port made worse by PS Now streaming.
A RDR remaster would be great, I'd love to play a game visually up to snuff with RDR2 but without any of the bloated mechanics and bad pacing.
It wont'be DLC i imagine . Full new release using RDR2 assets. 40$ (without multiplayer) or with RDR2 Online included (60$)
%100 on it. They know they cant get same money from RDR2 Online as GTAV online . It is limited. They know lust for RDR1 remake on new platforms/remaster. They already modelled cities.NPC's gonna be there. I imagine they will record RDR2 style conversations for John with NPCS(but use same lines of arthur for not record npcs)
etc
%100 on it. They know they cant get same money from RDR2 Online as GTAV online . It is limited. They know lust for RDR1 remake on new platforms/remaster. They already modelled cities.NPC's gonna be there. I imagine they will record RDR2 style conversations for John with NPCS(but use same lines of arthur for not record npcs)
etc
I'm soooo close to finishing RDR2. I was going to buy RDR1 and replay it... but reading this now I'd hate to waste the money.
Also, anyone to back to RDR1 after 2? I'm betting it's hard to play something so gorgeous then go back to that (even if it got the Microsoft "remaster treatment").
Also, anyone to back to RDR1 after 2? I'm betting it's hard to play something so gorgeous then go back to that (even if it got the Microsoft "remaster treatment").
I didn't play RDR1 after RDR2, but I did play it on a regular Xbox One for the first time like two months ago. The game holds up. And you can mainline it in like 14 hours.
Hmmm tempted to give it a shot! My luck though I'll buy it and then play it and complete and will get news about this lol.
If they are remastering the first game, I hope they announce it soon as I was about to start playing it on the PS3.
I'm pretty bored with the online already, so if they announced a dlc I have another reason to boot the game again.
How the hell are people blindly believing this? Did no one stop for a second to think that this video might definitely be fake? The voice doesnt lip sync to John and you can hear John's grunts, not Jacks.
This is fake. Has to be. If they were planning a remake DLC I doubt they'd already have fully fledged voice lines in-game while still developing it. None of this makes sense to be real.
This is fake. Has to be. If they were planning a remake DLC I doubt they'd already have fully fledged voice lines in-game while still developing it. None of this makes sense to be real.
