There is already heavy speculation on what Red Dead Redemption 3 could bring to the franchise, but one thing it does not need is more of Dutch and Hosea. The elder of the Van Der Linde gang have both already played a big role in the series, and while there have been calls for RDR3 to show the gang's glory days, their presence is not needed in the next title. In fact, it may be better if Red Dead Redemption 2's sequel looked to the future, rather than the past.
Nothing concrete has come out about Red Dead Redemption 3, and there are a few good reasons for that. For one, it seems that Rockstar's current focus is on the Grand Theft Auto 6, with RDR3 still far in the future. However, with the franchise being a major hit for the studio, Red Dead Redemption 3 is almost a certainty.
As has been argued by Reddit SnooEagles3963, Red Dead Redemption 3 doesn't need Dutch and Hosea. Going back to Dutch and Hosea after RDR2 would be a major waste of potential for the franchise. Both of them are fascinating characters, but they have already played their role. It is time for the games to move past them.
Red Dead Redemption 3 Doesn't Need To Go Back To The Past
Red Dead Redemption 2 is one of the most successful examples of a prequel in gaming history. Arthur Morgan's story was an emotional journey that not only complemented the first game, but stood entirely on its own as an experience. It built on the gaps that were left in the first game's story and turned Arthur into just as loved a character as John, and possibly even more so.
One could argue that Red Dead Redemption 3 could be another prequel due to RDR2's success, but a second prequel wouldn't have the same impact. What Red Dead Redemption 2 did was fill in a story and provide a lot of context for why the first game unfolded the way it did. Not only that, but Arthur was an excellent lead for the story, letting the player see the fall of the Van Der Linde gang through his eyes. However, the rise of Dutch and Hosea is not a story that needs that same level of exploration. Not only is there little that needs to be added to that story, but players already know more or less where it would lead.
Going further back into the past would not serve the Red Dead Redemption series well. If anything, going forward would be the better move because there is more ground to cover story-wise. Without a good direction for the story, Red Dead Redemption 3 could ruin the franchise. There are still plenty of stories that RDR3 could tell, but most of them are after the events of 2, not in Dutch and Hosea's past.
Dutch & Hosea's Story Already Ended With Nowhere For RDR3 To Take It
Despite the Red Dead Redemption series only having two games, there is already something of a pattern that can be seen with them in of story. Each game thus far has starred an outlaw protagonist who can be good or bad depending on how the player plays them. In the climax of each of their games, they have their final standoff and allow those closest to them to escape, earning the redemption the game's title implies.
While there is no written rule that states every game in the series has to end the same way, the ongoing thread of redemption does feel like an important one. However, fans of the first two games know that of the characters who find redemption in RDR2, Dutch and Hosea are not among them. Despite being a rather nice guy, Hosea is still a career criminal, and he dies having failed to keep Dutch and Micah from tearing the gang apart. As for Dutch, he leads the Van Der Linde gang into ruin with his schemes and inability to compromise.
Even if Red Dead Redemption 3 went back to the past, it would be difficult to create a redemption story for either Dutch or Hosea. Not only do they continue operating as outlaws until their deaths, but their actions lead to the demise of many people, both inside and outside the Van Der Lindes. They served their roles in the story well, but there is nothing more that RDR3 could do for them. Even though RDR2 didn't show Dutch's glory days, there wouldn't be much worth in lavishing more focus on his past.
Red Dead Redemption 3 Should Focus On Other RDR2 Characters
The main argument for bringing back Dutch and Hosea for Red Dead Redemption 3 is to further develop the story from the previous games. However, there are other characters that would be more fitting to follow while exploring more of the world. Dutch and Hosea's stories were already written, but some other characters still have plenty of story potential left.
The surviving of the Van Der Linde gang have the best possible hooks for a future story, particularly Sadie and Charles. Sadie took up work as a bounty hunter after splitting off from the gang's remnants, and her career could provide a good jumping-off point for the story. There is also potential for RDR3 to give Charles a happy ending after all that he went through in Red Dead Redemption 2. Charles left to try to start a family up north after RDR2, and that could bring some excellent storytelling potential as well. Charles trying to establish a peaceful life, but having to use his well-learned fighting instincts to protect himself and his family, would be interesting. Plus, his moving north would likely provide a whole new set of locations to explore compared to past games.
There are a lot of characters that could carry Red Dead Redemption 3. Arthur Morgan's success shows that the developers could even make a new character to drive the narrative as long as they were good enough. There are several RDR2 characters that could return in RDR3, but Dutch and Hosea are not on that list.
Red Dead Redemption 3 needs a good story in order to live up to the lofty expectations raised by the most recent game in the series. To do that, it needs strong characters to drive the narrative. Unfortunately, despite their crucial role in the history of the Van Der Linde gang, Dutch and Hosea can't provide the story that Red Dead Redemption 3 needs.