Red Dead Redemption 2: Do We Really Need a Remaster? ⁉️

Amidst much speculation the long rumoured Red Dead Redemption 2 remaster is allegedly still in the works.

Leaker NateTheHate, who has built a reputation of being a reliable source of information responded to a query on X stating simply "Yes, they exist"

It’s been over half a decade since Red Dead Redemption 2 first rode onto the previous console generation, and to many it remains the gold standard. While most games from 2018 have started to show their age, Arthur Morgan’s world remains as breathtaking as ever, a dusty, cinematic marvel that looks and feels like it could’ve released yesterday.

The game’s enduring appeal is undeniable. Its world is still one of the most detailed ever created, from the frost forming on Arthur’s coat during an early morning hunt to the subtle grimace of pain when he’s shot in the ribs. Rockstar, as they so often do, didn’t just build an open world; they built a living, breathing ecosystem that feels authentic down to the last boot print. Players still lose hours not to missions or collectibles, but to simply existing in that world, fishing, drinking coffee by the campfire, or riding through the Heartlands as the sun rises over the plains.

And then there’s the story. Few games since have matched Red Dead Redemption 2’s level of emotional depth. Arthur’s journey from outlaw to reluctant philosopher is a masterclass in character writing, bolstered by Roger Clark’s incredible performance and some of the finest voice direction in gaming.

So with the rumours swirling about a potential Remaster, it’s hard not to ask the obvious question: Do we need it?

Certainly there’s always the lure of “next-gen enhancements” 4K textures, improved lighting, ray tracing, maybe even a frame rate bump to 60fps. But the truth is, RDR2 already looks better than most games released in 2025. You can walk into any saloon in Valentine or peer down from a ridge in Ambarino and still be floored by the sheer artistry of it all. Calling it “dated” feels almost disrespectful.

Rockstar have fumbled before, most notably the disastrous launch of Grand Theft Auto: The Trilogy: The Definitive Edition. On paper, that remaster sounded like a celebration of Rockstar’s legacy. In practice, it was a buggy, bizarre-looking mess that somehow managed to make games from the early 2000s look worse than they did on PS2. The fear, of course, is that history could repeat itself. A careless or outsourced remaster could tarnish a game that doesn’t need fixing.

In fact, if Red Dead Redemption does have a flaw it's Rockstar’s tried and tested, but pretty creaky mission structures of "Go here, wreak havoc, go home", something a remaster couldn’t address anyway.

But that's an unrealistic ask, and if anything, what fans truly want isn’t even a visual overhaul, it’s preservation and accessibility. A stable 60fps patch for consoles, perhaps, or modest quality-of-life improvements would be enough. Red Dead Redemption 2 doesn’t need to be remade; it needs to be respected.

Because when the dust settles, few games have managed to capture the beauty, brutality, and melancholy of a dying frontier the way Red Dead Redemption 2 did. 

A remaster might sell, but sometimes, you don’t need to repaint a masterpiece. You just need to keep it hanging where everyone can still see it.

(Editor's Note: I'd love to see a Red Dead Redemption (1) remaster - Rich @gf)