Red Dead Redemption is a "Permanent Franchise" Says Take-Two

Red Dead Redemption is a "Permanent Franchise" Says Take-Two

Red Dead Redemption wallpaper

Take-Two also said that it plans to continue the BioShock franchise, despite the closure of Irrational Games.

Red Dead Redemption has become somewhat of an oddity in the game's industry - a hugely popular title from a major publisher that's over four years old and hasn't had a sequel released yet. But, that doesn't mean Take-Two has forgotten about it, as big boss Strauss Zelnick confirmed to Gamespot that "Red Dead is a permanent franchise" in the same vein as Grand Theft Auto.

He also talked a little about the future of the BioShock franchise, which has kind of been up-in-the-air since the closure of Irrational Games.

Zelnick said, "We haven't given any color on how you should think about [BioShock] yet except we do believe it's beloved; we think it's important [and] certainly something that we're focused on; something 2K Marin will be responsible for shepherding going forward. I don't want to say much else except to agree with you. I think there's a lot of upside in that franchise."

With E3 coming up around the corner, and some recent rumors suggesting that Take-Two is prepping something to do with Red Dead Redemption, could we possibly see a sequel announced at the event? As for me, as a PC gamer, I'm just hoping we'll finally see a PC port of the original game.

Source: Game Spot

Permalink

Ah, yes, "permanent franchise".

Clearly a sign of great things to come.

Oh, and continuing a series after the people who made it good have moved on. Yes. Excellent. Because we all know that Bioshock 2 was the best entry in that series, right?

Cue me being quoted by one of those deviant nutcases who really did think B2 was the best of the series.

You know, just because a game hasn't had a sequel in 4 years doesn't necessarily mean it needs one.

Red Dead Redemption didn't go anywhere. You can still go out and buy it right now.

Zhukov:
Ah, yes, "permanent franchise".

Clearly a sign of great things to come.

Oh, and continuing a series after the people who made it good have moved on. Yes. Excellent. Because we all know that Bioshock 2 was the best entry in that series, right?

Cue me being quoted by one of those deviant nutcases who really did think B2 was the best of the series.

I knew my deviant nutcase sense was tingling! But really, we all know System Shock 2 is the best game with "shock" involved, but I honestly do think that Bioshock 2 is the best of that "trilogy". Yes, the story was a critique on the other extreme of the political spectrum, handling socialism and communism with less finesse than the handling of objectivism in 1. But as a game? The drill was freaking awesome, laying traps was so much fun, planning and creating a room of death around a little sister, giving her the "go!" as your security system hacking and traps caused mayhem for all involved. I must also mention the ease of hacking, not having to play "connect the pipes" for the 100th time, and being able to do it from a distance. "Minerva's Den" was also probably the best segment of all three of the "Shock" games.

But I do carry the deviant nutcase label proudly, not enjoying Infinite nearly as much as either of the other 2, as I wasn't very enthralled by a much more linear, regenerating shield, 2 weapon, no hacking manshoot with pseudo-intellectual pretensions.

Before almost everyone punches their monitor in an attempt to break my face, I do realize that the Xcom shooter/Mass Effect Bureau thing doesn't give 2K Marin much stock of trust and faith these days, and a few of their big players left to make empty house exploration simulators. The big thing I want to know is how many Irrational employees that didn't follow Ken ended up at 2K Marin, eager to take a stab at another Bioshock without the delays, cuts, and wackiness that affected Infinite's development.

(Side note: Though I consider it as blasphemous as most people, Bioshock 2's multiplayer probably got more play out of me than any other multiplayer that was inappropriately grafted onto a single-player experience).

Sorry Zhukov, didn't mean to throw that many words at ya : )

Z of the Na'vi:

Red Dead Redemption didn't go anywhere. You can still go out and buy it right now.

Unless you're a PC gamer.

But seriously, I'm not even sure how to take this. RDR didn't particularly need a sequel.

Still, I wouldn't mind another game along those lines. Maybe this time we could get a game with controls that aren't crap, though.

"As for me, as a PC gamer, I'm just hoping we'll finally see a PC port of the original game."

amen brother

Considering RDR is probably my second favorite game ever, I'm glad they aren't rushing out sequels or anything. It pretty much could stand alone and I'd be happy with that.
That said, I'd welcome a sequel where you played Jack Marston. Hell, give it a strong female protagonist and cover the ups and downs of being a gal in the Wild West. I thought Bonnie MacFarlane was a really interesting, well fleshed-out character. We need more chicks like her in games. My grandmother was born out in the West Australian bush with several miles between neighbours. She was one tough country woman.

Well, I hope they leave it alone and do it's thing like GTA and not make another sequel for the sake of making it, like Bioshock 2 (not that it sucks or anything, actually it's pretty good).

We do believe it's beloved

and

I think there's a lot of upside in that franchise

Yes, whilst he is the CEO of Take-Two and has a business to run, there doesn't seem to be much of a reference to them being 'games.' His word selection makes me feel that he sees these as products and money makers than interactive devices of enjoyment.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, and it may be no different amongst other big publishing companies, but it doesn't seem that higher-ups in the industry really see games in the same way as players do.

As much as one part of my brain likes the idea of more Red Dead, I have to ask what a potential sequel would even be like.
I mean, what time period would it take place in if redemption was about the passing of the old west? Would it be set before redemption, during John's early days? I'm not sure I like the sound of anything of that sort...

Konaerix:
As much as one part of my brain likes the idea of more Red Dead, I have to ask what a potential sequel would even be like.
I mean, what time period would it take place in if redemption was about the passing of the old west? Would it be set before redemption, during John's early days? I'm not sure I like the sound of anything of that sort...

Hey just from hearing the dialog of Landon Ricketts I'd love to see a prequel of him. Even though we won't really wonder how his story ends, it'd be nice to see how he got there. Something along the lines of the Lost and the Damned and the Ballad of Gay Tony where characters from RDR like Dutch or Edgar Ross make an appearance as their younger selves would be awesome to see.

As long as they focus primarily on gameplay as well as the story and not so much the obligatory multiplayer

Bioshock never really grabbed me as a franchise, but holy christ, Red Dead was amazing. It also had a cheap but disgustingly expansive DLC campaign with the best zombie thing ever. Only headshots kill. It was also filled with some of the best meta jokes about video games and zombies any game has ever tried.

Zhukov:
Ah, yes, "permanent franchise".

Clearly a sign of great things to come.

Oh, and continuing a series after the people who made it good have moved on. Yes. Excellent. Because we all know that Bioshock 2 was the best entry in that series, right?

Cue me being quoted by one of those deviant nutcases who really did think B2 was the best of the series.

But..BioShock 2 WAS the best in the series. It made use of the Big Daddy's drill!

Honestly, that was the only reason I consider 2 better than 1. And I fuckin' loath 1 for so many reasons. At least they got the gameplay for the games right for a shooter in Infinite (because 1 and 2 were pretty much shooters, except they wanted to keep the controls more similar to an FPSRPG like System Shock. Which wasn't a shooter).

I will be very surprised if at E3 they do not announce either a PC port of RDR, or Red Dead thRee.

If a sequel, I hope it will be a sequel like Revenge was to Revolver, as in, no story connection at all, just set in the same mythical wild west universe. John Marston's story is fully told, and IMO we do not need to see more of him (or his clone Jack).

Zachary Amaranth:

Z of the Na'vi:

Red Dead Redemption didn't go anywhere. You can still go out and buy it right now.

Unless you're a PC gamer.

But seriously, I'm not even sure how to take this. RDR didn't particularly need a sequel.

Still, I wouldn't mind another game along those lines. Maybe this time we could get a game with controls that aren't crap, though.

It doesnt need one but to me another western like it would be much apreciated in the future (not exactly right now, give the "next" gen a few more years).

For all purposes it doesnt need to be related at all to John Marston, it just needs to be an open world game in a western setting.

Konaerix:
As much as one part of my brain likes the idea of more Red Dead, I have to ask what a potential sequel would even be like.
I mean, what time period would it take place in if redemption was about the passing of the old west? Would it be set before redemption, during John's early days? I'm not sure I like the sound of anything of that sort...

Or Red Dead Revolution, where you play as John's grandfather, who was also Ben Franklin's sidekick. ;)

And why stop there? AssCreed is doing well on the high seas, so how about Red Dead Blunderbuss?

Red Dead Revolver had nothing to do with John. So I guess if Red Dead gets the GTA treatment of new stuff every time? Sure, go nuts. Looking forward to the next one!

Zachary Amaranth:
But seriously, I'm not even sure how to take this. RDR didn't particularly need a sequel.

Still, I wouldn't mind another game along those lines. Maybe this time we could get a game with controls that aren't crap, though.

With any luck it will be a "sequel" in the same vein as GTA; less a direct story continuation and more a series of games set within the same kind of world. I'd happily play that, even though I think the story of the Marstons is effectively done with.

Honestly, I would prefer Red Dead Redemption not getting a direct sequel (it ended perfectly) but I would love to see the series continue, because its fun as can be.

I hope we get another Zombie DLC, that was crazy fun, something about Red Dead's gameplay made it work really well.

While I am looking forward to seeing what Microsoft has to say at E3 this year, and I am hoping for some really awesome surprises (Crackdown 3, I am looking at you!) I honestly think that a new Red Dead Redemption game would send me over the edge in a really good way. My fingers are crossed for this one!

TizzytheTormentor:
Honestly, I would prefer Red Dead Redemption not getting a direct sequel (it ended perfectly) but I would love to see the series continue, because its fun as can be.

Particularly as RDR was very much an end-of-an-era story. A prequel in the heyday of the West I would really love to see, on the other hand.

I think they should just let RDR stand on it's own. If they want to do another sandbox western, then so be it, but they shouldn't try and turn this one into a franchise with prequels, sequels, etc...

To be honest I'm kind of weird, but if I was going to do something like this I'd want it to be something similar to "Deadlands". After all they did a pretty interesting undead/horror expansion for RDR, Steampunk is popular, and with games like "Saint's Row 4" and "Infamous" we're beginning to see how special powers and such can be made to work in a sandbox setting. While perhaps not quite that superhuman, doing something with a cowboy who slings spells along with lead and winds up fighting a wide array of monsters and mad steampunk science could work.

Of course then again I've still been waiting for someone to actually make a AAA Sandbox horror game, sort of like what "Alan Wake" was supposed to be when it was first mentioned. "Deadly Premonition" came close, but the quality was... umm... lacking, even if the writing and concept was great. Nothing to do with RDR just thought I'd throw that out there.

"something 2K Marin will be responsible for shepherding going forward"

Ladies, Gentlemen, we're about to witness one of the most innovative, intelligent, and important game franchises be run into the ground.

Now, I understand that some people consider Bioshock 2 good, even the best of the series, and as far as I can tell that seems to be a bias driven by a tightening of the combat system which - to be fair, was archaic in Bioshock 1 - but the story and atmosphere of 2 couldn't reach the levels of 1 or (my own pick for best of the franchise) 3 and thus the game didn't become much more for me than a diversion, something I enjoyed, but only in the moment.

By contrast 1 and 3 have stuck with me and I consider them from time to time, during my day, as one might a novel or great movie. Whether or not they always succeeded, the first and last in the series aspired to create something new and multi-faceted, and tackle concepts and ideas worth tackling - even though some might say they do not belong in a video game.

2 didn't do this, or at least I felt it didn't. And while I didn't hate it (hell, I own it and have played it twice) it in no way stands as an equal to the others, even if it might be funner to play.

In short.

I am not pleased with this decision.

A new Red Dead, however?

This is great news for all :)

GundamSentinel:

TizzytheTormentor:
Honestly, I would prefer Red Dead Redemption not getting a direct sequel (it ended perfectly) but I would love to see the series continue, because its fun as can be.

Particularly as RDR was very much an end-of-an-era story. A prequel in the heyday of the West I would really love to see, on the other hand.

It's fairly likely it's not a direct sequel. I mean, Red Dead Redemption was following after Red Dead Revolver and I don't think anything in the games connected to one another.

josemlopes:
[
It doesnt need one but to me another western like it would be much apreciated in the future (not exactly right now, give the "next" gen a few more years).

For all purposes it doesnt need to be related at all to John Marston, it just needs to be an open world game in a western setting.

Well, it's not like Marston was explicitly related to Red from the first game, either.

Ten Foot Bunny:

Or Red Dead Revolution, where you play as John's grandfather, who was also Ben Franklin's sidekick. ;)

Hopefully, he meets up with an angel disguised as a French nobleman sympathetic to their cause. Maybe we'll finally get to read his manifesto on the right to choose.

Sorry, been reading a completely different piece of historical fiction based on the revolution.

>.>

SonicWaffle:

With any luck it will be a "sequel" in the same vein as GTA; less a direct story continuation and more a series of games set within the same kind of world. I'd happily play that, even though I think the story of the Marstons is effectively done with.

I'll be honest, I'd probably play any Red Dead Sequel. But it would be better if they didn't try and stretch out the Marston storyline.

Zhukov:
Ah, yes, "permanent franchise".

Clearly a sign of great things to come.

Oh, and continuing a series after the people who made it good have moved on. Yes. Excellent. Because we all know that Bioshock 2 was the best entry in that series, right?

Cue me being quoted by one of those deviant nutcases who really did think B2 was the best of the series.

Bioshock 2 stunk badly but Infinite at least came up with its own soul and a good story again.

Here's the thing, both of these are good worlds with so much that can be done to enable us to experience them in new ways. There's no reason not to try. If they utterly ruin the games and universes (like you and I suspect they will), then it will just be a wasted title in a sea of bad games. If they succeed, then we will benefit.

So it's a either meaningless or a win for us as consumers. It does me no harm that there's a million assassin's creeds if I don't play them. But the people that like them benefit. So what do I care about studios having the "audacity" to continue profitable franchises? Especially ones I might like.

Steven Bogos:
Red Dead Redemption is a "Permanent Franchise" Says Take-Two

"Red Dead is a permanent franchise" in the same vein as Grand Theft Auto.

Which one is it? are we going to get permanent spin offs of Redemption or are we going to get more Red Dead games?

Edit* I think I would like to see wild western approaches to places like the east and middle east. Or even that one idea call of juarez had where it was a modern day western. except do it better.

In the wake of GTAV I'm a little worried that any future Red Dead games could easily wind up with the same design-by-committee feel. There wasn't anything that made GTAV stand out for me, it was just a really big crime-sandbox with above average physics.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here