Has Rockstar Games ever made a HORRIBLE game?

I was thinking about it, and here are some titles that Rockstar has in their resume...

GTA Series

Red Dead Series

Smuggler's Run

My question is, have they ever laid a BIG time egg on a game? Have they made something that was horrible?

I can't think of anything... which is weird, because I usually have a good memory of sucky games.

Both GTASA and RDR had horrible stories. They were very well made games, but suffered from god awful writing and padding beyond anything tolerable.

Both GTASA and RDR had horrible stories. They were very well made games, but suffered from god awful writing and padding beyond anything tolerable.

foxhound_fox

Look up "State of Emergency", "Max Payne" and "Oni". Beyond Horrible they all were.nini200

Wow... I didn't think any of those games were horrible... Out of the list, State of Emergency was the worst, but it was just a beat em up.. I wouldn't say it sucked horribly though. Max Payne was pretty good on the PC... Oni was an interesting hybrid in and of itself.

If those are the worst games they produced, I dunno, that's not too bad.

I always thought the PS1 GTA's were the worst. Graphics weren't up to par for the PS1. More like SNES.

Look up "State of Emergency", "Max Payne" and "Oni". Beyond Horrible they all were.nini200

Max Payne, horrible? You opinion is invalid. :lol:

Thats the awesome thing about Rockstar, they don't make crappy games.

State of Emergency was just awful

State of Emergency and Oni were pretty bad.

In before someone says GTA IV, the best reviewed game of this generation. And no Rockstar is a pretty good developer. Manhunt 2 would be their worst game i think, but the game is not bad at all.GeneralShowzer

And yet, some of their GTA games, such as Vice City, were plagued with glitches and bugs like you wouldn't believe and they still got high scores, which I thought was completely ridiculous.

Max Payne was great. But they spoiled it with second version, where the story wasn't finished at all.

i thought GTAIV was pretty horrible

i thought GTAIV was pretty horrible

Harisemo

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

i thought GTAIV was pretty horrible

LionsBridge

i thought GTAIV was pretty horrible

I can appreciate that RDR and GTA series are objectively good games. They just dont really do anything for me. I got quite bored with both to be honest.

Not really played any of their other games to make a judgement tho...

GTA 4 was a horrible game. It is there normal revenge story but they just pop new characters end and out so fast. The mission where not good. Worse of all the horrible city layout. I quit because of it was a pain to drive around the city.

[QUOTE="LionsBridge"][QUOTE="Harisemo"]

i thought GTAIV was pretty horrible

chaosflare44

GTA IV was and will always be overrated. That game had a lot of problems going for it, but a lot of reviewers chose to ignore them and see the game for something else altogether, which is something I'll never understand to this day. Was the story good? Yes. Were the missions fun? Yes. But Rockstar should have improved it on other fronts, such as the shooting set pieces or the missions where you chase down someone, which were redundant and stale. GTA IV is NOT a perfect game - not a single game is. You can always look back at a game and go "This should have been improved on, that should have been added" etc. I refuse to believe there's sublime perfection in videogaming, because there isn't.

GTA IV is far from perfect.

They haven't made plain horrible games for as far I know, but I'm very sceptical about Rockstar. I have to give them credit for having a clear vision that shines through in nearly all of their games (freedom, twisted humour, emphasis on fun), but I do think they get a bit too much praise as their track record isn't spotless.

Take Red Dead Revolver, for example, the predecessor of Red Dead Redemption (and you'd be surprised at how few people actually realise RDR is a sequel), and it was ignored with a reason. It was an arcade-styIe third person shooter, and it exposed how much Rockstar relies on content, writing and freedom rather than core gameplay. This game was linear, not written very well and the content was underwhelming. What remained was the core gameplay, and it wasn't enough to carry the game. It was yet another weak, run-of-the-mill, obscure PS2 game by numbers.

And that's really my main problem with Rockstar games. In terms of gameplay, they're really a one-trick pony. Yahtzee described the sandbox genre as 'it's like GTA, but', and while I don't agree with that completely, this applies to nearly every game Rockstar has made. Midnight Club takes the flawed driving mechanics from GTA and gives them their own stage; The Warriors expanded on the combat system of GTA and made for a pretty enjoyable brawler; Bully sets the GTA concept in a school environment that feels a bit more confined than the diverse cities we're used to; Red Dead Revolver takes the terrible gunplay from GTA, making for a very disappointing game; Manhunt builds on the stealth gameplay of GTA, etc. etc. etc.

Adding to that, their games are often pretty clumsy, with silly AI and horrible gunplay, with the only difficulty often resulting from redundant, flawed gameplay moments rather than genuine challenge. Me and my friends tend to refer to them as 'Rockstar moments' as every Rockstar game has them, bar maybe GTA IV.

So no, they haven't made downright horrible games, but they are often rather simplistic in terms of gameplay, and instead make games that are more than the sum of their parts at first glance, but fall apart when played thoroughly.

Oh look, it turned out to be a rant.

[...] "Max Payne" [...] Beyond Horrible [...]nini200

[...] My playthrough of Red Dead Redemption was littered with more bugs and glitches than both my playthroughs of Alpha Protocol and New Vegas put together.smerlus

manhunt 2...

Look up "State of Emergency", "Max Payne" and "Oni". Beyond Horrible they all were.nini200

Rockstar didn't make any of those games. Besides, Max Payne is great.

They haven't made plain horrible games for as far I know, but I'm very sceptical about Rockstar. I have to give them credit for having a clear vision that shines through in nearly all of their games (freedom, twisted humour, emphasis on fun), but I do think they get a bit too much praise as their track record isn't spotless.

Take Red Dead Revolver, for example, the predecessor of Red Dead Redemption (and you'd be surprised at how few people actually realise RDR is a sequel), and it was ignored with a reason. It was an arcade-styIe third person shooter, and it exposed how much Rockstar relies on content, writing and freedom rather than core gameplay. This game was linear, not written very well and the content was underwhelming. What remained was the core gameplay, and it wasn't enough to carry the game. It was yet another weak, run-of-the-mill, obscure PS2 game by numbers.

And that's really my main problem with Rockstar games. In terms of gameplay, they're really a one-trick pony. Yahtzee described the sandbox genre as 'it's like GTA, but', and while I don't agree with that completely, this applies to nearly every game Rockstar has made. Midnight Club takes the flawed driving mechanics from GTA and gives them their own stage; The Warriors expanded on the combat system of GTA and made for a pretty enjoyable brawler; Bully sets the GTA concept in a school environment that feels a bit more confined than the diverse cities we're used to; Red Dead Revolver takes the terrible gunplay from GTA, making for a very disappointing game; Manhunt builds on the stealth gameplay of GTA, etc. etc. etc.

Adding to that, their games are often pretty clumsy, with silly AI and horrible gunplay, with the only difficulty often resulting from redundant, flawed gameplay moments rather than genuine challenge. Me and my friends tend to refer to them as 'Rockstar moments' as every Rockstar game has them, bar maybe GTA IV.

So no, they haven't made downright horrible games, but they are often rather simplistic in terms of gameplay, and instead make games that are more than the sum of their parts at first glance, but fall apart when played thoroughly.

Oh look, it turned out to be a rant.DraugenCP

Red Dead Revolver was developed and then dropped by Capcom. Rockstar picked up the game and finished it (they probably saw something in it).

Midnight Club preceedes Grand Theft Auto III so it's impossible that Midnight Club took Grand Theft Autos driving mechanics. Nevermind that the driving mechanics are completely different.

Grand Theft Auto barely had a melee combat system last generation and what was there didn't in the slightest resemble the elaborate, versatile system found in The Warriors.

Again, Red Dead Revolver was mostly developed by Capcom so it's highly unlikely that Capcom tried to ape Grand Theft Auto's gunplay.

Regarding Manhunt, you got it backwards. Manhunt's stealth and gunplay heavily influenced San Andreas and Grand Theft Auto IV.

What you call a one-trick-pony is really a massive, truly global development process united under a single clear vision. Rockstar's other games/developers didn't pick apart Grand Theft Auto - just the opposite. Those elements where subsequently implanted into Grand Theft Auto.

Red Dead Revolver was developed and then dropped by Capcom. Rockstar picked up the game and finished it (they probably saw something in it).UpInFlames

Midnight Club preceedes Grand Theft Auto III so it's impossible that Midnight Club took Grand Theft Autos driving mechanics. Nevermind that the driving mechanics are completely different.

Grand Theft Auto barely had a melee combat system last generation and what was there didn't in the slightest resemble the elaborate, versatile system found in The Warriors.

What you call a one-trick-pony is really a massive, truly global development process united under a single clear vision. Rockstar's other games/developers didn't pick apart Grand Theft Auto - just the opposite. Those elements where subsequently implanted into Grand Theft Auto.

As I said, the order in which it happened doesn't matter. GTA seems to be the only series where Rockstar can cover up the shortcomings of many of the aforementioned games with lots of charm and a very clever artistic process (i.e. writing, licensed music, story, etc.). I have no doubt that they are indeed a global developer that has an uncanny sense of direction, but that being said, most games do feel rather limited in the sense that, at one point, I'm inclined to think 'I could just be playing GTA instead'. That's also a testament of GTA's greatness, but it isn't a very positive in regard to their other titles.DraugenCP

Well, we'll just have to disagree on this as I found all of their games awfully compelling in their own right (apart from Manhunt 2).

State of Emergency and Manhunt 2 are pretty bad.

I really disliked GTA Liberty City Stories

Look up "State of Emergency", "Max Payne" and "Oni". Beyond Horrible they all were.nini200

Look up "State of Emergency", "Max Payne" and "Oni". Beyond Horrible they all were.nini200

State of Emergency was just awful

riou7

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]As I said, the order in which it happened doesn't matter. GTA seems to be the only series where Rockstar can cover up the shortcomings of many of the aforementioned games with lots of charm and a very clever artistic process (i.e. writing, licensed music, story, etc.). I have no doubt that they are indeed a global developer that has an uncanny sense of direction, but that being said, most games do feel rather limited in the sense that, at one point, I'm inclined to think 'I could just be playing GTA instead'. That's also a testament of GTA's greatness, but it isn't a very positive in regard to their other titles.UpInFlames

Well, we'll just have to disagree on this as I found all of their games awfully compelling in their own right (apart from Manhunt 2).

Yeah, it's a difference of opinion. Personally, I only thought The Warriors approached the quality of GTA. There were other nice games, but as of now none of them have been particularly memorable for me. Although I unfortunately haven't got to play RDR yet, and that's supposed to be really good.

To each, their own.

Not sure if anyone said this yet, didn'tread all of the posts. But rockstar made that 3D Earthworm Jim game, which I hear bad things about. I didn't play it myself though.

Rockstar game never got the gameplay part of their games (and the exception isMax Payne!) which totally kill it for me,(RDR, GTA4 Auto aim, More like aim bot)as a huge fan of over the top shooters ive never understood why some dev add those boring/bad gameplay (i mean i expect game like FF to be slow paced and somehow boring). Rockstar and Bioware are at the same level to me, They make game with a good background but the rest is lacking. (Vanquish showed everyone that a 3rd person shooter can be just as smooth as a FPS in term of Gameplay)

So to answer the Question, No they didn't make any Horrible game, but they never made any Great game either.

SoE was hardly awful. It was shallow, repetitive and not very well excuted, but "mediocre" is not the same thing as "HORRIBLE".
SoE2 was actually kind of bad, but Rockstar didn't publish that.

Oni also failed to live up to a lot of its promise, but a lot of people liked it as well. It has a 9.6 user review on Metacritic.

As far as Max Payne...lol. I'm sure you could find people who list it as their favorite game ever. It hasn't aged particularly well, but that game was HUGE when it came out.

The Max Payne movie, however, was horrible.

SoE2 was actually kind of bad, but Rockstar didn't publish that.

in short, Rockstar have published a few mediocre games, nothing cringeworthy, however. And this is coming from someone who hasn't really enjoyed a Rockstar game since Vice City.