Red Dead Redemption 2: The Reveal Trailer

Update: it’s aired! Full YouTube trailer below. It is, er, brief. But very pretty and pleasantly tranquil.

I’ll be honest: I’m writing the bones of this post before the hopefully below trailer’s actually aired (in five minutes from the time of posting), because that’s how the internet works these days. So, for all I know, all the Red Dead Redemption 2 [official site] ad consists of is Sam Houser screaming “screw PC gaming and the horse it rode in on” at the screen for 68 seconds, but hell, let’s be optimistic.

The words underneath were written before I watched it, and if they turn out to be hilariously inaccurate you’ll probably be able to see me hastily deleting them in real-time.

The ‘will it be on PC’ question? remains vexing. On the one hand, recent GTA tradition dictates that they pretend there isn’t a PC version for a few months, before eventually revealing a visually nip’n’tucked version due the next year. The meagre RDR2 info to date only mentions Xbone and Pussfor, so there remains every chance they’re once again simply declining to talk about PC until later. That way they get an extra marketing push, and to shout bigger, better, shinier rather than make the consoles look bad pre-release.

Also! PC gaming in 2016 is not PC gaming in 2007. So much bigger now, so much more money likely: much more foolish to ignore because it’s too much effort.

On the other hand, Red Dead Redemption 1 was never on PC, so there’s a question mark hanging over whether they’re happy to essentially split the series or want to be all neat and tidy and keep it inside a console box.

Fingers crossed, basically. I can’t summon much enthusiasm for guns’n’cars’n’sociopaths these days, but Red Dead’s lonely cowperson plains-wandering retains great appeal – especially if I finally get the chance to see it in ultrocrispovision.

PREDICTIONS:

– No dialogue WRONG
– A very unexpected soundtrack WRONG
– A cool group shot of multiple heroes RIGHT
– No playable women characters, because Rockstar will not want to capitulate to anyone else’s request even if loads of their staff really want to do it. RIGHT I think?
– Cactii GENUINELY NOT SURE

Let’s see how well I do.

Game’s due out ‘Fall 2017’ on console; PC is, as I say, TBC.

From this site

111 Comments

  1. Sp4rkR4t says:

    Plot is about the zombie cactus uprising.

  2. Pogs says:

    And the one previous article on a game probably not coming to the PC is not enough why?

    • Stevostin says:

      Beacause it’s probably coming to PC maybe ? They basically took the same approach on GTA V and were proven right. RDR is the one game they did that wasn’t on PC. Unless they keeped the same tech (doesn’t look like it, does it ?) it’s reasonable to consider it will be a PC game too.

      Also we’re speaking about one of the Top 5 PC games seller. It matters to a lot of people. A lot a lot a lot.

      • Premium User Badge

        Flavour Beans says:

        “RDR is the one game they did that wasn’t on PC” Midnight Club 3, Midnight Club LA, Liberty City Stories, Vice City Stories, The Warriors…

        I’m not saying you’re wrong about Rockstar doing a lot of business on the PC, but the person you’re replying to is right: It’s kinda silly to see so much hype on a PC games website for a sequel to a console-only game put out by a company that only seems to release on PC a year or two after console, if they bother to at all.

        I mean, we might as well start talking about Mario games here because Nintendo might branch out in the next couple years in the face of declining console market control, or talk about the next Madden game because we might get to emulate it in a few years.

        • dangermouse76 says:

          My respectful counter to you would be this isnt about logic it’s about what’s popular and what people are interested in. And this site covers what people are interested in and what the writers are interested in.
          Also it may come to PC……..hopefully – if it’s good, #no preorders.

          I got a new job today #partpicker #very happy.

      • Pogs says:

        But RPS did an article yesterday on RDR2 saying its coming but not to PC. Fine its a good game and even it it makes the pc they don’t need to bang on about it twice in two days on a PC gaming web site. This is article trolling.

        However, part of this is the poor layout of RPS articles so unless you check every day stuff vanishes off this front page super quick.

        • Solidstate89 says:

          Are you being intentionally dense or something? If all this article was doing was talking about what the one the other day was talking about, you might have something. But it’s not. This was about the teased trailer (what a world we live in, eh?).

          It’s true it’s not confirmed coming to PC, but article trolling? Are you fucking serious? Scroll past it if you don’t want to see it. This isn’t two identical articles in two days for crying out loud.

          • Premium User Badge

            DelrueOfDetroit says:

            Don’t you know it’s unethical to make somebody click a link?

          • aerozol says:

            Yeah, I’m sure RPS is posting these because people are looking at them (they do have stats, you know, if nobody was interested they’d know about it), so coming in and complaining about it is really counter-productive.
            As if the headline wasn’t clear enough…

        • dsch says:

          Pining for RDR has been part of PC gaming culture for years. Perfectly legitimate thing for RPS to cover!

      • welverin says:

        Well, GTA 5 has consistently been in the top ten selling games on Steam since it’s release, so releasing a game that has just as much good will behind it is safe bet to do just as well.

        That’s a reason to expect it to eventually get released on PC.

    • Steravel says:

      Because pagecounts and ad views, obviously.

      RPS, pick a side. PC audience was good to GTA5. Top 10 sales and huge user mod enthusiasm for years for a 3 year old game. What more, in your opinion, do we have to do? There’s no valid apologistic view here. It’s a great, hairy, vein-popping shaft.

      Because of the fact that a game *might* get a PC port at some point, contrary to precedent, is not a good enough reason to cover a game for a PC audience. Giving you folks the benefit of the doubt as intelligent people, you damn well understand that.

      I look forward to your flailing attempts to salvage credibility.

    • Premium User Badge

      JiminyJickers says:

      Because I don’t have any self control and must read every article ever written and cannot resist any link!!

      Seriously, there are articles on here that I don’t read. Don’t feel the need to tell everyone about it though, haha.

  3. FurryLippedSquid says:

    I think they’re intentionally trolling PC users at this point due to the stink “we” kick up over their game releases. I think they’d be utterly bonkers not to release it on PC, along with a remastered version of the original after the unmitigated success of GTA V.

    That’s my prediction, anyhoo.

    Edit: Wow, lengthy trailer.

  4. The Algerian says:

    My money’s on April 2018 for the PC version.

  5. Derpkovsky says:

    Are we sure the group of men riding on horses are heroes? They looked like bandits to me.

    • P.Funk says:

      Well that is the traditional hero shot and if I recall correctly it was seven men riding abreast, and seven has a special meaning to westerns.

      Of course no guarantee that R* isn’t doing their usual Hero is a villain-ish thing. Frankly I think the west is a perfect environment to challenge the binary of heroes and bad guys. RDR already somewhat did this and frankly the best westerns did this too.

      I’m feeling a need to go rewatch some Deadwood.

  6. Bullitt says:

    What a crock of shit. Bad trailer

  7. Bishop149 says:

    So no platform info at all in the trailer.
    And I didn’t see ANY cactii!

  8. dangermouse76 says:

    Huh uh, it’s gotta pretty mouff.

  9. Fry says:

    “Pre-order now!”

    For a game with a vague release date a year in the future. Sigh.

  10. Jokerme says:

    30 FPS confirmed. Looks too good for consoles.

  11. ukpanik says:

    Underwhelming.

  12. TillEulenspiegel says:

    Also! PC gaming in 2016 is not PC gaming in 2007.

    GTA5 came out 18 months later on PC. I have no idea why there’s so much coverage of every teaser for this game on a PC site, when their website very clearly says only Xbone and PS4.

    Rockstar seems to be doing exactly what they always do. RDR was allegedly an exception because the code was an un-portable disaster.

  13. Rince says:

    I still don’t know what bothers me more, the no PC release or the no female playable character.

    • Abacus says:

      Has gaming been starved of female playable characters lately? I don’t think it has.

      • TheRealHankHill says:

        All media is starved of female leads, but that doesn’t mean we have to include female leads in every piece of media we consume. If we go that route, then you are still under representing COUNTLESS other groups of people. I don’t think a single game can fit that many leads. This is just people stamping their feet.

        • Jediben says:

          Not starved; can’t stomach. Big difference.

        • Rince says:

          Well, at least in my case is not a issue of representation, I don’t really care that much about those things.
          It’s more of personal preference, I really like to use female characters, and I’m not that fond of using male ones.

    • Distec says:

      – No playable women characters, because Rockstar will not want to capitulate to anyone else’s request even if loads of their staff really want to do it. RIGHT I think?

      Boy I hope this turns out to be true, if only to irritate the usual folks.

      Let there be an avalanche of articles about Red Dead’s problematic absence of inclusive characters, and let Rockstar laugh all the way to the bank in spite their impotent mewling.

      :D

      • unitled says:

        Hmm, you seem to have wandered into RPS by mistake? Maybe another news site will be more to you liking.

        • Distec says:

          I can see how one could view that as a dig at RPS, but the truth is that I don’t find them too bad in this regard. I’ll cop to having some serious disagreements with the editorial line on this site, but the staff aren’t in the habit of penning those kinds of screeds on a regular basis.
          Only a few writers here seem to reliably (and tediously) bring up the topic when a subject comes within fifty yards of it, and even then those concerns are generally brought up in a smaller portion or throwaway line in their Wot I Think pieces or previews. I find it annoying, but I can live with it.

          The RPS crew – sans maybe one individual – have yet to thoroughly embarrass themselves with the kind of tripe other outlets pump out. That’s to their credit, and I still visit this site given that I enjoy most of the other writing.

      • Vesuvius says:

        “Boy I hope we can exclude a whole class of people, if only because it’s a laugh to me when they’re denied any representation or agency”

        • Distec says:

          If you really want to construe my comment as “anti-woman” – even though it mostly applies to straight white men who write about stuff online for a living – then go ahead and treat yourself.

        • RichUncleSkeleton says:

          Not having your race, gender or ethnicity featured in video games with a frequency commensurate to its share of the population (in the US, in 2016) is practically a civil rights violation, when you think about it.

          • P.Funk says:

            That’s a very optimistic contention you have there. Going from problematic under representation which is rational to outright civil rights violation by not being playable in consumer gaming is erm… well its begging less intellectual people to come along and start flaming you.

            This is like the exact issue I have with discussing the role of women in media. You can’t have any nuance, someone just comes along and throws down an extreme that basically suggests if you don’t agree with them you’re into civil rights violations and all that jazz.

            Not very intellectual in my opinion, not very insightful, and definitely the opposite of what brings people together to solve their problems.

            Now hopefully you were joking and I missed it. I hope you were joking.

          • Distec says:

            Pretty sure it was a joke, especially given the posts he’s made further along.

            I can’t blame you for being unsure, though.

      • Rince says:

        And now I got confused, are we still talking about female playable characters or a PC release?

    • Bishop149 says:

      I do think this particular setting would make for some very interesting female lead possibilities. The only Western movies I consider to be even half decent contain major female characters, but then its not exactly my fave genera, mostly because of its crushing predictability due to hackneyed plots.
      From the male perspective how many iterations of “Grizzled Cowboy” can there be? As if THAT hasn’t been done to death.

      • Jediben says:

        Yeah I want to be an effeminate Chinese mine worker whose ultimate dream is to be the start in a travelling rodeo.

        AND IN THE GAME!

      • Zenicetus says:

        There is good writing and there is bad writing. And there are damn few story lines that can’t be morphed one way or another into a Western theme. Seven Samurai becomes Magnificent Seven, etc.

        Hell, you could take most of the Witcher 3 storyline (aside from the end-of-world stuff) and transfer that to a Western setting. Grizzled, aging bounty hunter looking for a daughter, who he suspects is in some kind of trouble. Meanwhile juggling former love interests, taking side bounty hunter missions, and so on.

      • Werthead says:

        This immediately brings to mind Deadwood, and its gallery of male and female characters. And, yes, Chinese ones too.

        • P.Funk says:

          But the real question is would those who are very put off by no playable female leads in gaming be content to have females represented as they historically were in that period, as owned wives, whores, addicts? That is the historical truth of the era, that very very VERY few women in the west had any form of agency or power or rights and were quite disposable the less white they got.

          I’m not sure an honest portrayal of women would be to the liking of many who are so very vocal about the need for female representation. Even the great Calamity Jane had this in her Wiki summary – “It is known she was illiterate, an itinerant alcoholic and occasional prostitute.”

          • Werthead says:

            Women in the west had, at various points, equal property rights and even the right to vote much earlier than they did in the eastern states, both moves enacted to encourage settlement. Women in the west ran businesses (including some very expensive bordellos), ran farms and ranches, robbed banks and lived as outlaws. All exceptions rather than rules? Maybe, but men like Doc Holliday and Wyatt Earp and Al Swearengen were all exceptions as well. Then of course you have the native American tribes, whose customs varied but quite a few had equal rights between the sexes.

            Dismissing all women in the west as “owned wives, whores and addicts” is simply historically inaccurate and a sweeping and less-than-useful generalisation.

    • dungeoncrawl says:

      If Star Wars A New Hope came out today, I guess we’d demand there be another version that has a female Luke Skywalker??? I never understand the argument of forcing creative storytellers to jam in a character of the opposite sex in their stories. They’re telling a story, and in their story the lead is male, in a male dominated time period…let them tell it the way they want. Shaming/forcing company’s creative staff into a specific path for political correctness is an affront to art and story telling IMO. You want a certain gender character as the lead in the story, go write one. Bring that to market. We’re not just talking about creating skins on a side scroller with no story. If we were, I ‘might’ be more inclined to be with you. But even then, the artist/creator may envision their art as being led by one gender or the other.

  14. TheRealHankHill says:

    I will never understand why people feel like a game is REQUIRED to cater to them. It’s art, not political policy. If the game isn’t about a female lead, why shoehorn in a female? If you seriously have issues with under representation of females in gaming, maybe make a game with a female lead instead of trying to force other people to? Yeah, female leads are under represented. As are black leads, chinese leads, middle eastern leads, gay leads etc. Are we gonna include ALL of those in this single game too just to appease you?

    • Xocrates says:

      “If the game isn’t about a female lead, why shoehorn in a female?”

      Because the story is fiction and as such whether or not the game is about a female or not is completely at the developer’s will. If there are no female characters is because the developer didn’t want to or (far more often than you would think) didn’t even think about adding one.

      Sometimes they have a good justification, often they don’t, other times they’re not even aware people would want them. Bringing it up, even if it achieves nothing, is a good way to raise awareness.

      “If you seriously have issues with under representation of females in gaming, maybe make a game with a female lead”

      Genuinely working on it.

      But seriously, this is such a dumb argument. Half the reason such representation doesn’t exist in games is because the type of people who would add them to games don’t join the industry… because they’re not represented.

      The industry is largely white guys making games for white guys, with anyone with different ideas being ignored or yelled at for being “political”.

      “Yeah, female leads are under represented. As are black leads, chinese leads, middle eastern leads, gay leads etc. Are we gonna include ALL of those in this single game too just to appease you?”

      No, but I can certainly include some of them in most or all of the games. This is not an all or nothing issue.

      • RichUncleSkeleton says:

        But seriously, this is such a dumb argument. Half the reason such representation doesn’t exist in games is because the type of people who would add them to games don’t join the industry… because they’re not represented.

        Humor me for a moment and please explain at what precise level of representation your hypothetical not-straight-white-male demographics will become interested in creating and playing video games?

        The industry is largely white guys making games for white guys, with anyone with different ideas being ignored or yelled at for being “political”.

        It is political because arguments for representation are always made on ethical grounds (diversity is a moral imperative) instead of on pragmatic ones (more diverse characters will create more compelling experiences). Nobody makes the latter argument (not convincingly, anyway) because it’s patently absurd to claim that a military shooter or an open-world carjacking game would be a vastly different experience if you play as a woman or black person.

        • Xocrates says:

          1) Representation > ~0% Which is what they currently have.

          2) What the hell are you talking about? You just made my point for me.

          You just said that that having a white guy isn’t political while having someone else is while admitting there isn’t a difference.

          So why is white guy disproportionately represented? By your logic half the video game protagonists should be woman.

          • RichUncleSkeleton says:

            1) Representation > ~0% Which is what they currently have.

            Obviously not true. Underrepresented or not, there are plenty of high-profile “other” (not straight white male) video game protagonists.

            You just said that that having a white guy isn’t political while having a non-one is while admitting there isn’t a difference.

            So why is white guy disproportionately represented? By your logic half the video game protagonists should be woman.

            That is not what I said. What I said is that the arguments for making more “other” protagonists are almost exclusively political (again: diversity as a moral good). The straight white male as “default” protagonist is a pragmatic decision because most video game developers and players are straight white men who make and experience things, as people typically do, in their own likeness.

          • Xocrates says:

            @RichUncleSkeleton:

            1) What does plenty mean? For instances, out of the 500+ games I own on steam I recall precisely one with an openly gay playable character (and I don’t mean having the option to be gay, I mean in an actually gay relationship). Is this plenty?

            2) The problem here is that people often confuse one reason for the other. The MAIN reason I want more diversity in videogames characters is because I’m fucking bored of the same white dude being the main character in every fucking game. And while I’m all for pragmatism, it reaches a point where that “pragmatism” leads to lazyness and can even be irresponsible. The lack of diversity in the industry is actively harming it – as seen by the resistance to suggestions to add any diversity at all, even where it makes sense.

            As such I want to encourage more diverse characters in part to attract more diverse voices to the industry, in the name of creating more interesting games and varied playerbase.

          • RichUncleSkeleton says:

            1) What does plenty mean? For instances, out of the 500+ games I own on steam I recall precisely one with an openly gay playable character (and I don’t mean having the option to be gay, I mean in an actually gay relationship). Is this plenty?

            That’s just reductive. If I listed a dozen openly gay (defined exclusively as being in a gay relationship, for some reason) characters, you’d ask where all the trans characters are, and so on. The point is, there are definitely examples of video game characters that fall outside the “typical” demographic archetype. It’s certainly more than your 0%. Lara Croft is the classic example of a strong woman character. She’s existed since the 90’s and sold tens of millions of games. If representation in game development follows from representation in games themselves, then wouldn’t you have expected a massive increase in the number of women developers since the late 90’s?

            The lack of diversity in the industry is actively harming it – as seen by the resistance to suggestions to add any diversity at all, even where it makes sense.

            What are some examples of this?

            As such I want to encourage more diverse characters in part to attract more diverse voices to the industry, in the name of creating more interesting games and varied playerbase.

            What’s a more interesting game, exactly? Suppose I’m a black woman and I play a Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto game where your character is a black woman and that motivates me to get into game development. What kind of game do you think I’m going to want to make? I do not accept as a given (or even a very likely outcome) that transplanting underrepresented minorities into the same games that are popular now will change them in any significant way.

          • P.Funk says:

            “Suppose I’m a black woman and I play a Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto game where your character is a black woman and that motivates me to get into game development. What kind of game do you think I’m going to want to make? I do not accept as a given (or even a very likely outcome) that transplanting underrepresented minorities into the same games that are popular now will change them in any significant way.”

            I find it odd you’d discuss the notion of women and blacks in the context of a modern military scenario as if their experience as a person in those situations would be not substantially different. Women face different challenges in the military than men and blacks have historically had a very different relationship with the military than whites and in particular a Vietnam context would tell a very different story for a black than a white.

            Whats more given that women are going to be put into combat roles going forward in the American military there is actually a very good opening for some unique and different story telling in a modern military context for women. Its perhaps going to be one of the most interesting things to look at in the next few decades of conflicts for western armies.

            Now, if you wanted to look at women in combat already you could do a story about an Israeli woman in the IDF.

            Lots of interesting female perspectives, as well as perspectives for other racial groups. What about an immigrant minority who joined the Marines and now has to participate in a conflict in his former homeland?

            Lots of cool things to do with that and it would in fact connect with these groups. Its not unreasonable to think that if AAA gaming were showing potential for telling non white male Eurocentric stories that non white males might find more cause to want to join this industry. People do after all make games out of passion more than just for money.

          • Xocrates says:

            @RichUncleSkeleton:

            You said there were plenty, I asked what plenty was, you didn’t answer.

            Also, I said ~0% which means that approximately there are none, not that they don’t exist.
            I know that examples exist, but with very few exceptions they are largely invisible, and certainly not proportional to their real life numbers or, likely, proportional to the part of them that play games.

            “What’s a more interesting game, exactly?”

            If people capable of making them won’t join the industry, we’ll never know, now will we?

            The game industry is incredibly homogeneous, and as a result so are a lot of its games. More kinds of people making games mean more fresh perspectives, mean more varied games. This is not a hard concept to grasp.

            Also:
            “I do not accept as a given (or even a very likely outcome) that transplanting underrepresented minorities into the same games that are popular now will change them in any significant way.”

            Which is half of the bloody point. It’s a largely meaningless change that makes a lot more people feel represented and catered to, increasing and diversifying the audience allowing for new niches.

            “What are some examples of this?”

            He says while arguing against what he himself calls a meaningless change.

          • RichUncleSkeleton says:

            I find it odd you’d discuss the notion of women and blacks in the context of a modern military scenario as if their experience as a person in those situations would be not substantially different.

            They may very well be. But we’re talking about video games, not documentaries. You need to have a compelling gameplay loop with lots of Stuff™ to do, a plausible story that emotionally involves the player, and so on. And so in practice by the time you’re finished checking all the boxes that a modern big-budget game is supposed to check, what you’re left with is a game that is nearly indistinguishable from those that came before, except the skin color or gender of the player character is different. That’s a weird definition of diversity to get fixated on for people who claim to want truly different experiences in video games. It plays more like digital tourism–watch these different people, from a safe distance, and see how different they are, while doing the same stuff you were already doing with generic white male protagonist–than a uniquely compelling experience.

            Whats more given that women are going to be put into combat roles going forward in the American military there is actually a very good opening for some unique and different story telling in a modern military context for women … People do after all make games out of passion more than just for money.

            I don’t have an objection to playing as these underrepresented groups, I’m just not willing to indulge the fantasy that it offers a radically different experience, or that someone who rolls their eyes at Military Shooter #3,631 will suddenly become interested in Military Shooter #3,632 because you play as a woman. In most–maybe not all, but most–games that feature an “other” protagonist, you could drop a “traditional” character in their place without changing any of the actual game built around it.

          • Xocrates says:

            “I’m just not willing to indulge the fantasy that it offers a radically different experience, or that someone who rolls their eyes at Military Shooter #3,631 will suddenly become interested in Military Shooter #3,632”

            No, but someone who might have been tempted by shooter #3,631 but disregarded it because it wasn’t “for them” might buy Shooter #3,632 if they see themselves represented in it.

            This is not a black or white issue, and approaching it as such helps no-one. Bottom line is that there is no reason not to do it where it makes sense, which isn’t the same as saying you should always do it.

          • wu wei says:

            The straight white male as “default” protagonist is a pragmatic decision because most video game developers and players are straight white men who make and experience things, as people typically do, in their own likeness.

            Yes, it’s vitally important that we get to hear the white modern male experience of living in the Wild West, assassinating in 15C Venice, and exploring the depths of intergalactic space, if only for the fact that they’ve been so silenced we never get to hear things from this perspective.

        • P.Funk says:

          “it’s patently absurd to claim that a military shooter or an open-world carjacking game would be a vastly different experience if you play as a woman or black person.”

          I actually strongly disagree with this. The identity of a character profoundly affects his/her interaction with the environment and how it treats them. The entire story line of GTA San Andreas was focused around black gang culture and you wouldn’t have had that story with a white italian.

          This is assuming you give a shit about the story. If its just an open world sandbox where behavior of the player is entirely gameplay specific and arbitrary and disconnected to the story, as many people treat it, then why would you not cater to all identities? What difference is a GTA session if you’re a woman or a black man or a native or a chinese person?

          Obviously the lack of a player avatar would mean that the story is important to the game experience, so if you’re John Marsten then you’re playing a white ex-bandit and in the context of the dying west that’s important. You have a different story experience to being another kind of person.

          That isn’t to say that these choices aren’t fine, that choosing to focus on a white male protagonist in an era and place where they had the interesting stories and the rest were basically not very good for hero adventure games makes sense (maybe a Telltale story about slave life or being a prostitute would be more interesting but not for a GTA style game probably).

          Meanwhile if we fast forward to the early 20th century there’s no reason you couldn’t have a GTA style game where you’re a female bank robber. That could be done, and I think it could be interesting and if there’s a story absolutely would it influence it and the gameplay that goes with it.

          • gwathdring says:

            “That isn’t to say that these choices aren’t fine, that choosing to focus on a white male protagonist in an era and place where they had the interesting stories and the rest were basically not very good for hero adventure games makes sense (maybe a Telltale story about slave life or being a prostitute would be more interesting but not for a GTA style game probably).”

            This is nonsense, though. For starters, underdog hero stories happen all the time. Second, historical accuracy is a farce in games like this that will inevitably be loaded with simplifications, mistakes, anachronisms and intentional departures for the sake of fun or convenience. Third, women are half the population and there were free black folk in the US even before the Civil War and the relevant anti-slavery ammendments; Jim Crow or no, there were certainly free blacks afterwards.

            The idea that white people EVER had all the “good” or “interesting” or heroic stories is a bunch of revisionist, racist hogwash. Ditto for suggesting that women were only involved in society to the extent of being boring, inactive things. Based on the rest of your post you seem to know better, so perhaps you mistyped that paragraph or something. Otherwise, you need to unlearn all the bullshit you’ve been fed as history.

          • P.Funk says:

            I do not need to unlearn anything. If you want a story about celebrating gunslinging heroes then that’s a white man’s story. Its a white man’s warping of history to begin with. Free blacks would not go around shooting white men and be considered folk heroes. Of course we can do the Django unchained thing but I frankly thought that was a bit of typical Tarantino excess that started promising but ended absurdly. Blacks as cowboys were just labourers for the most part as far as my knowledge goes. Blacks free or not were second class citizens. A Red Dead Farmer/Herder could be an interesting game though. I would consider peculiar however to be inclusive of minorities badly persecuted in this era by assigning them a role in a game that effectively takes the mantle of white revisionist history rather than accurately representing their true lot. RDR did to an extent try to take a bit more of a cynical look at the roles of the era but I’m not sure a black gunslinger is anything but a modern pop culture excess just as much as pretending white heroes of the era were heroic for slaying by gun those who got out of line. The likes of Wyatt Earp are already questionable figures.

            As for women I’m sorry but women absolutely were not central figures in most of history at the time in this area. Peculiar individuals crop up and large numbers of women pervaded camps and western towns but had little agency. Their role was chiefly human property be it through marriage or prostitution. Female suffrage did begin its long political journey in the 19th century through the temperance movement but this is not typically a part of society you associate with the frontier but instead the political apparatus of the well established east, a story for sure but not one primarily concerned with the west.

            Saying blacks and women have a story is absolutely true. Saying their story is fitting as the focus of a western adventure gunslinger game is pushing it. Then again I am far too concerned with historical truth I guess, lets just write something totally a historical but then I find the idea of inclusion of the minorities or ignored peoples loses some of its political significance.

          • gwathdring says:

            You realize gunslinging heroes are outliers in the first place, right?

            Cowboys were laborers. Black cowboys were still laborers. In the frontier in particular, women had to take on roles of laborer and business-person the same as everyone else. They were not afforded equal status for those occupations but they owned property, ran businesses, did manual labor, and so forth. History is often presented in developmental narratives both to excuse the status quo and make changes seem more profound and worthy of congratulation.

            For example, women were able to vote over a broad swath of territories long before the 19th amendment. We revise history both to highlight the glory of the achievement (for example of Women’s suffrage) and pat ourselves on the back afterwards but also before hand to excuse poor laws because that’s just how things have always been, right? But it isn’t. It isn’t how things have always been.

            Especially following the civil war, there was an explosion of black frontiersman–especially as farmers and cowboys. I’m not sure where you get the idea that “gunslinger” was a common career option for anyone, white or not. Is not our prototypical white wild-west hero a Cowboy, too? Last I checked it was. There were plenty of black cowboys.

            Indeed, laws in the west were generally more friendly to women. More new western territories offered women the right to vote sooner. Women had more opportunities to own land and businesses out west than back on the East coast (though even there, imagining women primarily as prostitutes and married loafs of bread requires an obscene amount of ignorance about American history and indeed global history).

            It’s easy to write off black lawmen, bandits and bounty hunters of note as one-off rarities, but its important to recognize that they represented a small sub-set of the population and yes, they were marginalized and oppressed on top of that. These harsh realities do not make Black presence in the American west less real nor make their participation in stories of adventure less “realistic” let alone less heroic and interesting.

            Last I checked, Red Dead Redemption wasn’t using oil barons and well established middle class east-coast families as its primary subject matter and protagonists. These aren’t stories that needs must be steeped in whiteness to be told accurately. Certainly not to be told compellingly.

            You definitely haven’t a clue what you’re on about.

            There are also plenty of fascinating and heroic stories to be told about Spanish citizens in the Mexican territories (where women had far more legal protections and influence, for that matter), and plenty of such stories to be told about Native Americans. The idea that to tell a story about the American West and have gun fights and excitement requires a male, white protagonist is straight up white male revisionist bullshit.

          • gwathdring says:

            If you’re saying it wouldn’t work because black men can’t be gunslingers and folk heroes at the same time, perhaps examine esteemed lawman Basse Reeves and further take a closer look at famous white gunslingers and the extent to which they’re considered heroes in the first place. We have a more complicated relationship with outlaws and bandits; by the same metric that some of them are folk heroes, people like Cherokee Bill are too.

            A lot of our most famous cowpolks aren’t gunslingers but performers. People like Bill Picket, Annie Oakley and Will Rogers. Then there are the most legendary sorts who wore a lot of different hats. Not many people come close to Wild Bill’s position in the folk canon of the American West. Women and non-white folk found their way into the heart of the American West performance scene, too.

            I’d also like to come back around to this idea that everything else aside, only portraying the most prototypical and stereotypical version of history makes a story reflect truth. Something is not less true because it happened less often. Stories about exceptional people are the very lifeblood of folk heroics. You don’t get to be a folk hero by working 9-5 and keeping your head down. You don’t get to be a folk hero by being remembered 100% truthfully, either. :P

            People like Wild Bill Hikcock aren’t remembered because they were normal. Even setting aside the absurdity of talking about historical accuracy in the context of Red Dead Redemption, even setting aside your revisionist ignorance of the presence and agency of black people and women in the American West, even setting aside the excitement of stories about underdogs rising up, even setting aside all of those relevant points: what the hell is wrong with a story about exceptional and unusual protagonists?

            No one’s trying to take away white cowboys. I’m instead criticizing the notion that black people were only relevant at the time as slaves or former slaves without agency and interesting stories as gunslingers or adventurers and the idea that women likewise were only relevant as sex toys. It’s not just offensive in a modern context it isn’t true to history. Its an exaggerated stereotype of history that reflects at best the general large-scale dynamics of the time. That does not reflect the bent of one especially concerned with historical truth.

          • Einsammler says:

            I just want to say that Saint’s Row comes to mind. I enjoyed having a customizable avatar for a variety of reasons.

    • Werthead says:

      The difference is that the numbers of Chinese and black people in the American West varied wildly depending on location and time period. But women continued to make up 50% of the population pretty much throughout the period. In addition, the widespread use of firearms resulted in female gunslingers and fighters like Calamity Jane and Annie Oakley, or the criminals Pearl Heart and Belle Starr rising to fame.

      After three games exploring the period, it’d be a bit odd if we didn’t female characters in more prominant roles.

      • P.Funk says:

        Lets not exaggerate the importance of these women in the period. Annie Oakley wasn’t a gunslinger, she was an exhibition shooter and pretty much her entire fame is built on traveling and doing this. Not much of a story line there.

        Calamity Jane is a more interesting character but a rare exception and also a very troubled person. She wouldn’t exactly fit the bill of a heroic figure, not without doing some things with her that would challenge most people’s understanding of female empowerment.

        I already posted this above but she was apparently “illiterate, an itinerant alcoholic and occasional prostitute.” on top of being prone to telling tall tales exaggerating her life’s story.

        But yes it could be totally fictional and therefore anachronistic to have a female lead in a western who is the shit and all that, but we shouldn’t pretend that the wild west was some kind of haven of females with agency. The vast majority were owned and treated as property or merely completely cut out of most important public life.

        That’s the sad truth of romanticizing the wild west. I don’t think an honest story about the west is particularly important to women as empowerment, even if its important to understanding their subservient role even that late in western social development.

        • Werthead says:

          “She wouldn’t exactly fit the bill of a heroic figure, not without doing some things with her that would challenge most people’s understanding of female empowerment.”

          That would be a quite interesting tack to take, although I’m not sure Rockstar are the company to do it; although they did, after settling for easy and lazy gay-bashing jokes in GTA4, then have quite a nuanced gay character in The Ballard of Gay Tony, so maybe they could give it a go. If you look at someone like Trevor, that’s not exactly a typical video game protagonist or good guy right there. Screwed-up protagonists are kind of their thing.

          • Distec says:

            I agree with you on damaged/imperfect protagonists in general, but it seems to me that not all archetypes are received equally. Trevor is a sadistic and unpleasant maniac, but his personality is an enabler (or lazy/clever justification) of all the violent fun one can have in GTAV. He’s flawed, but he’s also little more than a grungy cartoon that you probably can’t take too seriously, even at his most repugnant. His extremities make him palatable to most playing audiences.

            I’m not saying it’s impossible to have an Annie Oakley type of player character in games. But you probably have more work cut out for you there than you ever would with a hundred Trevors. I wouldn’t have trouble playing a character that had to occasionally prostitute themselves (just as an example, and as was done in the times), but I’m curious as to how many others would; and that would include the people who are typically banging on for more female representation. This is a personal hunch, but I have the feeling that they don’t want an Anne Oakley; they want an empowered female in the Wild West, damn everything else. Although I might be uncharitable there.

            I think the whole issue could be sidestepped with a different game and a different company. I’d appreciate any genuine attempts on that front. The singling out of this sequel from some circles feels really misguided.

        • TheRealHankHill says:

          Exactly my point, shoehorning it in just for the sake of it doesn’t make sense.

        • Steravel says:

          P.Funk : Lets not exaggerate the importance of these women in the period.

          Ok, let’s not. Although I would stipulate that 50% of the earth’s population is important in any time period.

          Let’s instead focus on the fact that most of the actions attributed to these fictional male heroes are both implausible by any standard of biology, as well as any standard of history.

          Why should anyone accept the exploits of a male character than guns down 30 armed men without a scratch, as any more believable or historically plausible, than a woman making her way in the old west?

          It’s all implausible. Why are men the only ones who get to benefit from impossible tall tales? Why are women the only ones who seem “implausible” when comparing far fetched tales of valor?

          I’m just going to go out on a limb here, and say that Mad Max would probably not have survived the amount of physical torment that character is subject to in any given movie. Why do we suspend disbelief for him, and not a female character?

          Male characters break the suspension of disbelief as frequently as female characters. But male characters are the only ones we allow to do so, de rigueur.

          • gwathdring says:

            Well said.

          • Premium User Badge

            Qazinsky says:

            This is a good post. I find it a bit weird that “Women didn’t usually do that during that time period” is used as an argument for not making a fictional story like that.

            A majority of fictional stories are about exceptional individuals and usually have other exceptional individuals to interact with. They are rarely about that farmer that never left their farm, other than to buy supplies.

            A western game could absolutely be about a chinese female gunslinger, even if the Wild West wasn’t full of them, because it’s possible, unlike, say, putting an alien there, or a car.

            Besides, I heard that the Wild West wasn’t so wild anyways.

          • LennyLeonardo says:

            Let’s also not forget that RDR itself featured Rockstar’s 2 best female characters – Bonnie and Abigail – both of whom would have made excellent sequel/prequel protagonists.

    • Rince says:

      Some people simply want to play as a female. There’s not a representation issue, or political issue, or whatever issue besides personal preference.

      I just want to play as a cowgirl in the Far West shooting things dead, riding my horse into the sunset and having adventures.

    • Steve Esquire says:

      I wouldn’t even say that the gaming industry is lacking female protagonists. Seems like about 40% of games that come out these days have a female lead. I think it’d be cool to see Rockstar do it because they’ve simply never done it. But when it comes to female characters in games as a whole, we have quite a few – especially indie titles. I’ll go out and say many of the giant franchises don’t do it, but there’s still plenty that exist. I’d much rather see more original characters as a whole rather than using their gender, sexual orientation, or skin color to make them feel original. You can easily have a boring character even if it’s a transgender black female that’s bisexual. We should be more focused on if the writing and story gives us a good character rather than what they look like. People complain about wanting more exceptance and diversity and yet at the same time seemingly prove that they feel like those things I mentioned makes up a person. It’s quite ironic. The people that want diversity seem to be the ones that notice things like skin color much more than those that simply except whatever the devs choose to make.

      So to me, I’m actually getting sick of seeing “the token _____” characters. It’s like if there’s a game with a party, they need to cover every base. “White guy, black guy, girl, and we’ll put in a gay guy somewhere too.” It’s already old. They let those features be what defines the character and not original writing. It’s an excuse to get “PC” points and also get away with lazy writing.

      And the fact of the matter is that while gamers are incredibly diverse, white males are by far the largest market. So even though it’d be cool to see more diversity, I honestly can’t blame devs for wanting to make their main character as relatable as possible. But I have to make it very clear that the “token ____” characters are really, really annoying. I’d be interested in seeing what R* would do with a female lead, but only because I know they have the writers to back up the character.

  15. Dudeist says:

    Now we will talk on PC Games only portal about not PC games just because they are and because they are no PC games, so PC is already mentioned and can be talked on RPS.

  16. deadfolk says:

    Seems to me they just want that sweet, sweet moolah from people buying on console then double-dipping when the inevitable PC version moseys into town.

  17. Jerppa says:

    Vote for Trump. It is the only way to get RD2 for pc.

    • Premium User Badge

      Qazinsky says:

      Hmm, this is a pickle. On the one hand, I am not a fan of kicking the leg of the table that holds the wobbly Jenga tower that is the world economy. But on the other hand, RDR2 on PC…

  18. Regibo666 says:

    Meh…..another pc website running another article about a game that isn’t even on PC. What is going on?

    Until it’s officially announced it ain’t on PC… period.

    Everyone thought the original would make it, never did. Chances are this won’t either.

  19. Player1 says:

    The most important question is: will it have bar fights like in the Terence Hill and Bud Spencer movies? If not, I’ll pass.

  20. ooshp says:

    Oh so exciting.

    1 good (offline only) release since GTA2, and the previous game in the series wasn’t on PC… let’s get excited for this shitbean of a company. Japanese console developers have done a better job of PC releases recently.

    I thoroughly enjoyed my 5000 hours of GTA online to get through 2 heists without someone dropping out due to ROCKSTARHATESYOUANDTHEIROWNGAME error.

    The amount of destroyed potential still hurts my brain.

    I’d like to see Rockstar wallow in mediocrity for their horrific failure to make GTA online playable, but unfortunately people will rockstar because rockstar.

    Every.

    Week.

    edit – after reading the things I might be very drunk but…. meh, too hard to edit all of the things so id recommend just not reading it. Or invoice someone for your lost time. Like Gandhi. Invoice that guy. He’s always annoyed the shit out me

    Oh golly I still have at keast a minute left. Please someone make an official invoice to that skirt wearing motherlicker he ruins evru game of Civ I play and I truly dislike his face

  21. sagredo1632 says:

    Mr. Meer, methinks you will heartily regret your enthusiasm by the 40th consecutive week that RDR2 is on the Steam Top 10 Chart (right below CSGO and above GTA 5).

  22. Unsheep says:

    Of-course it will come to PC. They might do the same as with GTA 5 and do a console release first to get a healthy revenue stream going, while working on a PC version, and then release the PC version once it’s finished. Perhaps they even have a deal with Microsoft to sell the PC version through the Microsoft Store, since the game is also coming to the Xbox One.

  23. popej says:

    Disappointed it isn’t Sam Houser screaming…

  24. Flopper says:

    They could do the Rainbow Six Siege thing and cave to whiny dorks about having equal choices to play male or female characters…

    Oh wait that makes Rainbow Six look like a fantasy shooter instead of a realistic tactical shooter.

    Sometimes having male and female characters isn’t a good thing. Sometimes having only a male or only a female is the right way to go.

    Has anyone whined about Tomb Raider not having a male option for the lead?

    • LennyLeonardo says:

      No, because that would be completely missing the point.

    • Rince says:

      Of course we all know that women can’t shoot.

      And about Tomb Raider… you mean Uncharted? Because he’s a male Lara Croft. And she’s a female Indiana Jones.

    • aerozol says:

      News at 11: Guy who likes to pretend he’s a real soldier outraged by idea of women pretending they’re real soliders.

    • Werthead says:

      Is your assertion that having women in front-line combat roles is unrealistic?

      Because forty thousand Red Army tank crew, snipers, pilots and infantry would like to have a word with you. And that’s just from the Stalingrad theatre.

      • gwathdring says:

        Heck, why stop at the first half of the century? Rainbow Six Siege has SWAT/Counter Terrorism forces. Women are on the front line of many militaries, Americna included, and employed as fully trained SWAT personnel *right now.*

        According to the OP, reality is incredibly unrealistic. :P

  25. Spacewalk says:

    They’re going to meet us halfway and release it on tablet.

  26. immaletufinishbut says:

    Trigger Warning

  27. racccoon says:

    Lets all Hope Rockstar are working on the PC version, and not working a silly console version with the after thought PC porting.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>