Here we are in 2026, and the gaming world is still buzzing about the potential for Red Dead Redemption 3. It's like waiting for a legendary gunslinger to ride into town—you know it's coming, you just don't know when or what he'll look like. The massive shadow cast by RDR2 back in 2018 makes any discussion about a sequel not just inevitable, but a full-blown campfire debate. Everyone has a theory, but the big question remains: where could Rockstar possibly take us next? The frontier's been explored, the outlaws' tales told... or have they?

The Prequel Predicament: Going Back to Move Forward

One of the loudest theories echoing across the plains is that RDR3 should be another prequel, diving even deeper into the past of the Van der Linde gang. Think about it—RDR2 was a prequel to the first game, and it was a masterpiece. So, why not double down? The logic is simple: go further back to when the gang was just a scrappy bunch of idealists, Dutch's hair was maybe a little less silver, and Hosea hadn't perfected that weary, wise sigh just yet.

This direction isn't without its risks, of course. Could a story set before the events we already know really hold the same tension? We'd know the ultimate fate of the gang, so where's the suspense? But then I think about Arthur Morgan. Ah, Arthur. His journey in RDR2 was so profound that the mere chance to see more of it is a siren's call. A prequel could be the ultimate character study, showing us the forging of the man we came to love (and cry over).

The Sequel Alternative: Why Jack Marston's Story Might Not Work

Now, some folks point to the end of RDR1 and say, "What about Jack?" Playing as an adult Jack Marston in the 1920s, navigating a world that has officially left the cowboy behind. On paper, it's a bold move—a Red Dead game in the Prohibition era? But let's be real, would it still feel like Red Dead?

The heart of these games is the dying gasp of the Wild West. It's about outlaws, open plains, and a code of honor clashing with a changing world. By the 1920s, that world is gone. Replaced by tommy guns, flappers, and speakeasies. Where's the romance in that for a franchise built on saddles and six-shooters? We'd lose the core gameplay loop of hunting, fishing, and getting into duels at high noon. A direct sequel might answer a narrative question, but it could sacrifice the very soul of the series. A prequel, set firmly in the West's heyday, sidesteps this problem entirely.

New (Old) Faces: Playing as Dutch or Hosea?

This is where it gets really fun. If we go the prequel route, who do we play as? We've been John and Arthur. The next logical step could be stepping into the boots of the gang's founders. Imagine controlling a young, charismatic Dutch van der Linde, before the paranoia and megalomania fully set in. We could see him formulating his philosophy, recruiting the first members, and being the magnetic leader he once was.

Or, what about Hosea Matthews? The cunning conman with a heart of gold (mostly). A game with Hosea as the protagonist could focus less on brute force and more on clever schemes, elaborate cons, and silver-tongued dialogue. It would be a different flavor of Red Dead, emphasizing wit over gunplay. Both options are fascinating because they would expand the universe in the same way RDR2 did—by enriching the backstory of characters we thought we knew.

The Arthur Morgan Epilogue: The Theory That Makes Too Much Sense

Let's talk about the Red Dead formula. Both games have featured a major twist: you play one character for most of the story, then switch to another for the epilogue. RDR1 ended with Jack Marston. RDR2 ended with John Marston. So, following this pattern, RDR3's epilogue character should be... Arthur Morgan.

Yes, you read that right. The main story could follow young Dutch or Hosea, and the epilogue could be a young Arthur Morgan joining the gang. This isn't just fan service; it's narrative poetry. It would be the ultimate "passing of the torch." We'd get to see the events that are only whispered about in RDR2:

• His tragic romance with Mary Linton: We heard the letters, we felt the regret. But seeing it? That's a whole different level of heartbreak.

• The death of his son, Isaac: This is a massive, off-screen trauma that shaped Arthur's cynical exterior. Playing through that loss would be devastating but would complete his character arc.

• His early days as a ruthless enforcer: The "colder" Arthur from the early chapters of RDR2. We could experience firsthand what made him so feared and closed-off.

This structure would allow us to see the compassionate man Arthur becomes in RDR2 as the culmination of a lifetime of hardship, not just the events of one game. It would bring his story full, beautiful, tragic circle.

The Verdict: A Prequel's Promise

So, where does that leave us? Staring at the horizon, waiting for dust clouds. A Red Dead Redemption 3 prequel set before RDR2, potentially starring a young Dutch or Hosea with an Arthur Morgan epilogue, feels like the most cohesive, satisfying, and Red Dead path forward.

The table makes it clear, at least to me. The prequel route, especially one that hands the reins to Arthur in the end, leverages the franchise's greatest strength: its characters. We don't just want more shootouts in the desert (though that's nice). We want to spend more time with these digital people who felt more real than most folks I know. Giving us more Arthur Morgan, showing us the wounds that made him, is the biggest upside imaginable. So, Rockstar, if you're listening from your secret mountain studio: saddle up that prequel. We're ready to ride back into the past one more time. 🤠