- Primary Subject: Red Dead Redemption 3 and the case for a prequel
- Key Idea: Why the Wild West setting and core identity of Red Dead make a prequel more fitting than moving forward in time
- Status: Opinion
- Last Verified: July 24, 2026
- Quick Answer: The piece argues that Red Dead Redemption should remain anchored in the fading frontier era, and that a prequel is the strongest direction because it preserves the series’ core identity while still allowing Rockstar to explore new stories within the Wild West setting.
This debate has a habit of riding back into town every few years. Every time Red Dead Redemption 3 comes up, someone suggests Rockstar should leave the Wild West behind and jump into the 1920s, the Great Depression, or even the early days of organized crime.
I can absolutely see the appeal. Those eras are fascinating, and Rockstar would almost certainly make an incredible game set in any of them.
The thing is, I've never been convinced they belong under the Red Dead Redemption name. Years have passed since Red Dead Redemption 2 launched, and if anything, I've only become more certain that a prequel is still the best direction for the series.
Not because I want to replay Arthur Morgan's younger years or watch Dutch slowly become the man we already know he'll become, but because I don't think Rockstar has exhausted what made the frontier such a compelling setting in the first place.
I've always thought Red Dead Redemption was about more than cowboys - it's about people awkwardly, stubbornly, and sometimes hopelessly trying to keep pace with a world that's already moved on.
That's a theme that still has plenty of room to grow without pushing the timeline beyond where the series naturally ends.
A Prequel Still Has Stories Worth Telling
One argument I hear a lot is that another prequel would have no suspense because we already know where the Van der Linde gang ends up.
I'm a little skeptical of that - truth be told. If Red Dead Redemption 2 proved anything, it's that knowing the destination doesn't make the journey any less engrossing.
Before 2018, everyone already knew John Marston survived. We knew Dutch would escape. We even knew several gang members would still be alive years later.
Yet Rockstar still managed to tell one of the most emotionally impactful stories in gaming because the focus wasn't on surprising me with the ending.
It was about making me understand how everyone got there. I'd happily trade another familiar face for a brand-new gunslinger whose story gradually intertwines with the Van der Linde gang's golden years.
We've spent two games seeing the gang near its collapse. We've heard legends about its golden age, but we've barely experienced it ourselves.
That feels like a goldmine Rockstar has barely chipped away at. More importantly, a prequel lets Rockstar continue exploring the American frontier before it fully disappears.
Every game has shown civilization creeping closer, railroads expanding, industries replacing small towns, and governments tightening their grip.
Going further back means larger wildernesses, smaller settlements, and a world that feels even less civilized than what Arthur explored.
For me, that's just as exciting as any new narrative twist. Rockstar has always been at its best when the world itself feels alive.
I'd love to see harsher survival mechanics, larger wildlife populations, more dynamic ecosystems, and frontier towns that genuinely feel isolated rather than connected by modern infrastructure.
A prequel doesn't have to retrace the same old trail - it just has to find a more interesting one. It could make the Wild West feel wilder than it's ever been.
Against all expectations, I actually like many of the ideas people pitch for a post-Red Dead Redemption setting. A Rockstar game during Prohibition sounds fantastic. So does one set during the rise of organized crime or the economic struggles of the 1930s.
I just don't think those ideas should carry the Red Dead Redemption name. At some point, you have to ask what defines the series.
If cars become common, cities dominate the map, machine guns replace revolvers, and horses slowly disappear from everyday life, is it still Red Dead? Or is it becoming something entirely different? For me, the answer is the latter.
The frontier isn't just where Red Dead takes place - it's stitched into the series' identity. Remove it, and you're left with a game that might still be incredible but no longer captures the atmosphere that makes Red Dead feel so unmistakably Red Dead.
Rockstar already has Grand Theft Auto for stories about a modernizing society. Creating another franchise between Red Dead and GTA would give the studio far more creative freedom than trying to squeeze those ideas into a series that was never built for them.
If anything, I'd rather Rockstar surprise everyone with a brand-new IP than force Red Dead into an era where it no longer feels at home.
Maybe Rockstar has an ace up its sleeve that will completely overturn everything I think Red Dead Redemption 3 should be.
But after all these years, I still haven't heard a concept that convinces me leaving the frontier behind is the right move.
Until then, I think the series still has unfinished business in the Old West, not because it's running out of ideas, but because I genuinely believe looking further back is where Red Dead Redemption still has its strongest stories left to tell.
For more like this, stick with us here at Gfinityesports.com, the best website for gaming news, reviews, features, and guides.