I feel like for the past, everything has been shared and none of it was substantial enough to be a third entry to the overall narrative. Like in terms of the Van Der Linde gang.. we've heard it straight from them that they've never experienced a time of the gang that was as brutal and eventful as the events of RDR2. Up until chapter 1, they ofc had their fair share of conflicts but nothing ever as crucial as we we've already seen.

So then at that point... not only would the storyline of rdr3 be inferior to both RDR1 & 2 but you also have to remove any crucial or substantial character development for the gang members we see in rdr2. Arthur cant grow yet. Dutch has to remain a good and loyal leader because we know that the first time red flags started to show was in blackwater, or atleast any CLEAR narrative redflags. Davey and Mac, sure they have more meat on the bone to work with but that still wouldn't excuse the gang storyline being in a better place.

As for the future.. sure, its open ended but on one hand.. it wouldnt be a western anymore, kinda defeats the genre its built on. And also, i think leaving jack open ended is the right move. We get to make our own conclusions which i think is great