Red Dead Redemption 2: Can it match expectations?

Debate: What does Rockstar need in a Red Dead follow-up?

Yesterday Rockstar said that there's "a massive number of ideas" left over from the development of Red Dead Redemption, presumably ones that could and may very well be used in a Red Dead Redemption sequel.

We think Red Dead 2 is going to be a tough horse to break-in though; in a lot of ways the spaghetti-western doesn't allow for much scope, sandy plains and wild horses are pretty consistent entities.


This isn't like GTA where you can jump to a new city, with a brand new layout and new vehicles to help keep things fresh. A wagon's a wagon.

It's not like Red Dead Redemption left much to be improved upon either. It got so much right; the shooting, lassoing and trotting all felt pretty spectacular, not to mention the story and general atmosphere we were treated to.

OK so Red Dead could do with a bit of work in the bug department and maybe a look at pacing, but these are mere tweaks.

The word from Rockstar is clearly one of confidence, that there's apparently much more the can do with the brand, which is important because the staggering impact Red Dead had means that minor tweaks alone will lead to disappointing sequel.

So where do you think Red Dead can possibly go from here? How can it move things forward without losing its essence, what do you think Rockstar still has up its sleeve and can it possibly be enough to top the original?

Considering the success of Red Dead Redemption, are we doomed to be disappointed with whatever is put out in its shadow?