In 2026, the video game industry has collectively worn out its welcome mat for Westerns. Rockstar is still the undisputed sheriff of the genre, and every whisper about Red Dead Redemption 3 sends the internet into a lasso-twirling frenzy. But the average Wild West fan—let us call him a grizzled player with saddle sores and a stack of old discs—thinks the conversation has gone stale. Why is everyone begging for another Red Dead prequel when a sequel to Gun would be the real treasure? Gun, released in 2005 by Neversoft and published by Activision, was a short, sweet, and wildly ambitious slice of cowboy fantasy. It let players ride horses, throw dynamite, and shoot bandits long before John Marston ever squinted at a sunset. And in 2026, it remains the most underrated Western game ever made.

The Case for a Gun Sequel Over Another Red Dead Prequel

A third Red Dead Redemption would likely be another prequel. That means more tragic gang members, more doomed romance, and more hints about how everything ends badly. The ordinary player gets it: tragedy is tasty. But must every Western be a funeral? Gun ended with Colton White getting satisfying revenge against the main antagonist. His story had a conclusion. A sequel would not need to drag him back as the protagonist. It could hand the reins to a new hero and go full Indiana Jones on the frontier. Imagine a Western where the villain is not a greedy railroad baron but an ancient cult dedicated to Mayan culture. Imagine lost treasure that belongs in a museum, not in a bandit's saddlebag. Imagine climbing cliffs, exploring cursed ruins, and fighting off tomb raiders with a revolver and a rope. In a period where cars and motorcycles are impossible, let alone a plane ride, the adventure would have to be on horseback. Is that not more interesting than another prequel about a gang whose fate is already carved in stone?

Gun Was the Blueprint for Red Dead Redemption

Gun never got Rockstar's marketing budget, but it did get something better: ideas. It offered partial open-world exploration, side quests, mini-games, a variety of explosives and guns, horseback riding, and the freedom to fight from the saddle. Was it rough around the edges? Sure. But it was ahead of its time. Red Dead Redemption learned from Neversoft's experiment, and Red Dead Redemption 2 built a cathedral on that foundation. Here is a quick comparison:

The tragedy is that Neversoft was never given a chance to make Gun 2. The studio was shuffled onto Guitar Hero, then Call of Duty, then into the dusty void of defunct developers. Activision still holds the IP, but the publisher has shown little interest in resurrecting a game that relatively few remember. Meanwhile, Rockstar holds the reins of the Western genre with an iron fist.

Why Activision Probably Will Not Touch Gun Again

The awful reality is that Gun fans—especially those who loved seeing a Native American raised like a cowboy—will probably never get a remaster, remake, or sequel. The original voice cast would be more expensive to hire now. A sequel appearing out of nowhere would not receive much attention. And in 2026, Activision lives under Microsoft's very large umbrella, which means the IP is technically in a vault that could be opened. But who wants to bet on a 21-year-old cult classic when GTA Online still prints money and Rockstar's next Western epic is already a license to print even more? It is easier to imagine a remaster of a forgotten licensed game than a full Gun 2. That is not pessimism; that is just the math of the modern industry.

What a Gun Sequel Could Look Like in 2026

If a miracle happened, a Gun sequel could be glorious. It could take the pulp adventure of the original and fuse it with the systemic depth of Red Dead Redemption 2. Here is what the ordinary player would want:

• 🌵 A new protagonist, with Colton White returning as a grizzled mentor.

• 🗿 A story about a Mayan cult, hidden temples, and a lost treasure that belongs in a museum.

• 🧗 Climbing, rope mechanics, and tomb raiding in a world without planes or cars.

• 🐎 Horseback combat that feels like Red Dead 2 but with more dynamite and less existential dread.

• 📜 Tall tales, mythical sites, and hidden items that turn the West into a land of legend.

• 🤠 A tone that is swashbuckling instead of sorrowful.

Indiana Jones and the Great Circle proved in 2024 that pulp adventure can work in games. A Western Indiana Jones on horseback could be even better. Why should every cowboy story end with a slow ride into the sunset and a tearful monologue? Why not end with a cursed idol, a collapsing temple, and a stick of dynamite?

The Red Dead Redemption 3 Problem

None of this means Red Dead Redemption 3 would be bad. Rockstar is a master craftsman. The marketing alone would be a cultural event. But another prequel? Fans already know how the Van der Linde gang ends. They already know the tragedy. A sequel to Gun offers something rarer: surprise. It could be a direct continuation, a spiritual reboot, or a spin-off. It could focus on the tall tales of hidden mythical sites or items. It could be a Western that does not apologize for being fun.

And that last row is the saddest part. Gun will likely stay a short but enjoyable experience for older console generations. It will remain a memory, a cult classic, a game that did it first and got forgotten. Red Dead Redemption 3 will continue to be what Wild West fans say they want. But maybe, just maybe, they should be clamoring for a sequel to Gun instead. After all, is a forgotten classic not more deserving of a second chance than another prequel to a story everyone already knows?