How many times have you gone through this game? For me, it had fantastic replay value, but unlike Mass Effect 2 (another 20+ hour game that came out the same year), it didn't have the start a new game and play through again replay ability. I just did everything that I could possibly do in the game's first play through (excluding all the unlock-able costumes), and including the DLC. I'm just wondering if anyone had a different feeling, and beat it more than once. I mean, it's good enough, it just doesn't seem like the type of game I would do that on though.

That's where the sequel leads me; I just don't feel like I have much reason to play it again if there isn't a sequel. I usually love playing previous installments of great games in a series when I know there's a sequel/prequel coming. Wow, you know what? I have all the GTA games, and I've never beaten one. I've only played for about 10 hours, maybe a little more, of any of them. So I know them well, but I don't know the full experience. I wish GTA 4 had some of the improvements Red Dead had. Anyways, that was random.

It'd be cool if they did, but they could set it in a different region, like they do with the GTAs. Since the RDR story was wrapped up fairly well, it'd make sense to take a sequel somewhere else, like say, further west. I'd love to see San Andreas in the late 19th/early 20th century.

It's a popular game. It will get a sequel.

I've only played through it once. I tried a second time, but just couldn't do it.

@ssj4raditz said:

It'd be cool if they did, but they could set it in a different region, like they do with the GTAs. Since the RDR story was wrapped up fairly well, it'd make sense to take a sequel somewhere else, like say, further west. I'd love to see San Andreas in the late 19th/early 20th century.

That's not far enough. I want to see an open world game set in Meiji Restoration era Japan.

@doublezeroduck: Jack, and I don't remember people hating him. Alright though.

I don't know if there'll be a direct sequel. It would be a little odd. I wouldn't mind seeing something else in a similar setting from them though.

Red Dead Revolver (I never played it) was not a direct prequel to Red Dead Redemption, so there is a possibility of another Red Dead game; though, I would like to see it set at an earlier point in time, I think. I would like to say that Red Dead Redemption was a fantastic game, and it is one of my top three favorite games of all time (with Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater and Minecraft). Great story, actors, music, beautiful setting, fun multiplayer, and that's off the top of my head. I have, however, only beaten the main story and Undead Nightmare story once each. I've restarted on both, but not finished both. If I were to beat either one again, it would definitely be Red Dead Redemption's normal story. No joking, I like every part of the gameplay. Playing the multiplayer, I have sometimes done next to nothing and still have had fun.

I played through it twice, getting 100% on the second playthrough as well as the Undead Nightmare stuff. RDR sold well and Rockstar clearly isn't shy about making sequels so it'll probably happen at some point with new characters and a new setting. I can only imagine how awesome a next-gen Red Dead would be.

I would like a sequel to Revolver instead. Redemption took itself too seriously and I felt some of the mechanics that felt great in Revolver felt awkward in an open world game.

Also, it needed way more Pigjosh, and not just a simple MP character skin.

I only played through it once, and didn't play online. I really liked it, a sequel could be cool.

there will be a sequel.

doesn't matter that marston's dead and all that. it's not like niko bellic had anything to do with any of the previous GTA's.

Played the main game 3 times, just finished my 3rd last night. Made me happy to see a topic. Probably my 2nd favorite game if not tied with skyrim. It will definitely get a sequel. I think Rockstar sandiego gives the main team a run for their money.

Normally me and Rockstar games are not on speaking terms. I got RDR because of my great love "spaghetti westerns" and for my endless love Sergio Leone's Dollar Trilogy. RDR is a good game but deeply flawed. Mexico could have been made better or had a major cut. By the time I got to the third act of the game I was so bored I didn't really care how the game ended.

Red Dead Raiden  
Red Dead Revolution  
Red Dead Revolt
Red Dead Revenge  
Red Dead Rise   
Red Dead Reality 
Red Dead Reaping 
Red Dead Rearmed  
Red Dead Reason 
Red Dead Reaver 
Red Dead Rebellion 
Red Dead Revelation 
Red Dead Remembrance  
 
If they ever need to reboot the series: Read Dead Reborn 
 
Also, Read Dead Reckoning

Mexico could have been better, but I still really loved the game. We'll almost definitely get a prequel though, they can't really go any further in the timeline without it ceasing to be a western game.

If they make a sequel I hope it has less murder.

You kill an absurd amount of people in that game, i'd rather spend more time tracking, hunting and playing poker in the main storyline.

Well let's see...finished the campaign twice, each time getting 100% including all costumes, challenges and DLC content. Some 150 odd hours there. Finished Undead Nightmare twice, 100% the first time and I plan on finishing up the second file as well. Another 50 hours there. Yeah, I did a lot of free roaming...oh, and then there's the multiplayer; put in about 200 hours there. So yeah, I'd say it has replay value! Then again it's definitely my favourite game this gen so far and one of my all time favourites. Thematically and aesthetically, it's number one.

Red Dead Retribution would be the best title for a sequel.

@doublezeroduck: Jack, and I don't remember people hating him. Alright though.

If they do a sequel I hope they go Steam punk Western a la Wild Wild West. Just Imagine all the crazy contraptions the designers could come up with-Mechanical spiders, robotic pterodactyls for example. Riding a horse and jumping onto a flying creature would be great.

Also I hope you can swim in the sequel. That was an odd oversight in the first game.

They will make it, similarly to GTA, focusing in another wild west story.

I was thinking Jack Marston would have his own story of redemption that could be fleshed out, as well as his discovery of his father's past. It could start with the years leading up to Jack's murder of Edgar Ross, things like Landon Ricketts training Jack in gunplay and dying somehow, Abigail dying of tuburculosis, possible hunting of Archer Fordham, etc. and the killing of Ross would serve as the first act of the game. Now an outlaw, Jack could possibly flee to Mexico where he'd be in the middle of the Mexican Revolution. General Sanchez (who appears to be based on the real-life Porfirio Diaz) was overthrown by Abraham Reyes (probably based on Francisco I. Madero) in 1911 with the help of John Marston. Now a tyrant in 1914, one of Reyes's generals is conspiring to overthrow him. This could all be based on La decena tragica (Ten Tragic Days), where Madero's general Victoriano Huerta, aided by American Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson, staged a coup against Madero. Red Dead's version of Wilson could employ Jack to aid the revolution in exchange for being pardoned for his murders. There was a secret messenger going between Madero and Huerta that could be filled by Jack, givig him a lot of face time with Reyes. Also Luisa Fortuna's sister Miranda could come back to Mexico and become a revolutionary against Reyes and a possible love interest to Jack. This arc would end with the arrest of Reyes, and while being transported to prison, he would be assassinated (much like the real-life Madero) by Miranda in revenge for her sister, and this would give Jack a new perspective on his own revenge on Edgar Ross. There could be a third act from there, but I think this story would be great for another game. Characters such as West Dickens, Leigh Johnson, Irish, and Seth could reappear, and their fates as revealed in Red Dead Redemption could be assisted or witnessed by Jack (Johnson retires, Irish kills himself, etc). Also, I think it would make sense that John Marston never actually killed his former comrades out of sentimental reasons (Reyes kills Bill, John arrests Javier and gives him to the authorities, Dutch commits suicide) and maybe Javier Escuella could make an appearance since his is the only death left ambiguous. What do you all think?