Why does Rockstar struggle to make good gameplay?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by turtlethetaffer (15572 posts) -

For everything that GTAIV did right, its gameplay sucked ass. The shooting was terrible, the complete dearth of checkpoints made missions little more than frustrating, and trying to find cover in a gunfight was about as easy as an eighty year old nun. Niko controlled like complete ass, as did most of the rest of the game (although driving wasn't awful). It's only just now that Rockstar decided to implement mission check points, shooting that's competent (but far from the best on the market) and a decent cover system with GTAV. Their other games, like RDR and Max Payne 3, fare a tiny bit better since shooting and taking cover in both those games felt decent (more so in MP3).

Even still, their games are "incredible technical achievements," yet the actual gameplay is far from the best. I'm not saying that GTAV is terrible (it's not) but there are other games out there that do what it does better.

Yet Rockstar's games always get AAA reviews (at the very least) and sell like hotcakes. Can someone explain this to me?

#2 Edited by R3FURBISHED (9443 posts) -

Even still, their games are "incredible technical achievements," yet the actual gameplay is far from the best.

And its also far from the worse. Go back and play GTA III and Vice City on the PS2 - the gameplay has improved MASSIVE amounts.

GTA V and the way it controls is very good, as well as damn near everything in GTA V.

#3 Posted by jg4xchamp (45941 posts) -

They aren't that good?

Because they kind of aren't. They put a lot of their attention into technical achievements, flash over substance stuff, their lame attempts at telling a story(sans Red Dead Redemption as even with its narrative drawbacks, I like John Marston), and don't really put to much thought into their encounter design and mission. Plus their games are padded as all hell. They have like 8 hours of ideas in their games, but draw them out into a 20-30 hour campaign.

That said mechanically(at the least, the pacing could have been much better) Max Payne 3 was pretty damn good, and GTA 5 was much better in spots. I don't really care about arguing whether they deserve a 9 or not(that's semantics to be quite honest), but ultimately GTA 5 was a better game compared to their other sandbox games this gen. Or open world for the people that love bitching about "NO it's an open world". It was fun, had its moments.

But yeah for the most part they haven't really focused that much on their gameplay side of things, as they still tend to half ass a lot of things. And lets be real some of their narrative work is mediocre even by a "videogame story' standard.

#4 Edited by ShepardCommandr (1509 posts) -

They don't,it's just you.

#5 Edited by turtlethetaffer (15572 posts) -

@jg4xchamp: I've never been impressed by any of their narratives. Starting with RDR, I've been let down. Maybe it's because all the praise I heard for the game made me hype it a bit too much, but when I finished the story, I felt that I just did a 25 hour errand. The only part that stood out to me was the ending, simply because, like you, I really liked John Marston as a protagonist. He was well written and voiced, much like Max Payne. In Max Payne 3, I found the plot to be really stereotypical of the genre (BIG BAD EVIL CORPORATIONS USING EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING TO THEIR ADVANTAGE!) but Max Payne is a really good character.

And I'm glad you agree with me; for all the technical achievements they do, the gameplay in quite a few of Rockstar's titles is lacking. Like you said, their games feel padded, and the missions have little variety. For every awesome mission in RDR, there was another that was "go to this area, kill this guy/ guys and listen to a monologue." Not only that, but any mission that didn't have something to do with shooting dudes was, simply put, awful. I despised rounding up cattle and delivering goods. It felt like padding, and boring padding at that.

#6 Posted by turtlethetaffer (15572 posts) -

@R3FURBISHED: Never said they didn't improve. I think the fact that the bad GTAIV was an improvement just shows that Rockstar has always been about their achievements, rather than actual fun or varied gameplay.

#7 Posted by jg4xchamp (45941 posts) -

Max Payne 3 the plot just sucks.

A: it's trying to be a sequel to a game that already had provided the audience closure. So the follow up just felt off

B: Angst has an expiration date. There is only so long an audience is going to be cool with a person down in the dumps. And Max had overstayed his welcome at that point. He was basically Battlestar Galactica. We get it. your life sucks, move on please. Plus given how badass the action is, he does not flow with that games mechanics. You're all hyped from the badassery, and he is Commander Buzzkill.

C: All that shit for a fall guy? The fuck outta here. That game requires one too many mental gymnastics on the players part for that to be considered simply bad, much less good.

That said. I want a game with Max Payne 3s shooting mechanics with a character like Trevor. Would be a nice compliment to each other.

#8 Edited by ni6htmare01 (797 posts) -

I actually enjoy playing GTAV a lot and I had a great time so I'm not sure what you mean by struggle to make good game play

#9 Posted by turtlethetaffer (15572 posts) -

@jg4xchamp: I will admit the mood felt off. I'd feel amazingly badass, killing waves of dudes, then Max would open his mouth and say something really depressing. Still, I thought his dialogue was too well written to not be enjoyable. Like you said, though, the plot is just dumb.

#10 Edited by zeeshanhaider (1947 posts) -

Why waste your time on gameplay when you are a brand and people will buy anything coming out of that brand. It's sort of like Apple.

#11 Edited by Salt_The_Fries (7399 posts) -

Max Payne 3 was a witty stab at the hedonistic lifestyle, consumerism and heroes in video games in general. Its gameplay was prime and the multiplayer surprisingly stellar.

#12 Posted by cainetao11 (14343 posts) -

Because you haven't gone into their offices and defined "good gameplay" to them. Until then, they're just going to keep trying to satisfy the majority's definition. Hope all works out for you.

#13 Posted by Bardock47 (5042 posts) -

I felt that the gunplay in GTA V was weaker than in MP3.

#14 Posted by Liquid_ (2054 posts) -

@turtlethetaffer said:

Even still, their games are "incredible technical achievements," yet the actual gameplay is far from the best.

And its also far from the worse. Go back and play GTA III and Vice City on the PS2 - the gameplay has improved MASSIVE amounts.

GTA V and the way it controls is very good, as well as damn near everything in GTA V.

Sorry but there is no improvement

#15 Posted by Seabas989 (9647 posts) -

They could be worse. At least Rockstar isn't Bethesda.

#16 Edited by killatwill15 (837 posts) -

#

@turtlethetaffer said:

@jg4xchamp: I will admit the mood felt off. I'd feel amazingly badass, killing waves of dudes, then Max would open his mouth and say something really depressing. Still, I thought his dialogue was too well written to not be enjoyable. Like you said, though, the plot is just dumb.

WHOA DID YOU JUST SAY THE DIALOGUE IN MP3 WAS WELL WRITTEN?


I didn't know mp3 was written,

I thought the housers went into rockstar,

watched man on fire,

and peppered "bro" through out their "interpretation" of that movie....

but to be real, that game was not well written,

it tried too hard to be edgy,

and was a disservice to the max payne character

#17 Posted by wis3boi (30260 posts) -

this is news to me, they all play very well to me

#18 Edited by padaporra (3317 posts) -

GTA5 has great gameplay, and MP3 probably has the best gunplay ever made.

#19 Posted by bforrester420 (679 posts) -

I don't totally disagree with the premise of your thread. I do, however, disagree that more recent Rockstar offerings have poor gameplay elements. Grand Theft Auto has come a long way since GTA III. I tend to view their games as a sum of its parts. The stories aren't as good as some games and the gameplay isn't as strong as others, but the total package is often stellar.

#20 Edited by turtlethetaffer (15572 posts) -

@killatwill15: I thought some of the lines were gems, like "I felt like an avenging angel. I looked like a fat bald dude with a bad temper." Things like that were almost hysterically cynical.

#21 Posted by turtlethetaffer (15572 posts) -

@padaporra: The gunplay in MP3 felt really impactful thanks to the reactionary technology and blood effects, I admit. But other than that it's a rpetty standard cover shooter. I enjoyed MP3 a lot (made you feel pretty effectively like a badass) but I also recognize that there's very little "new" about the core mechanics of the gunplay. still loved the sense of impact though.

#22 Posted by killatwill15 (837 posts) -

@killatwill15: I thought some of the lines were gems, like "I felt like an avenging angel. I felt like a fat bald dude with a bad temper." Things like that were almost hysterically cynical.

ugh please don't remind me,

but the multiplayer in the games saves it from being wholly terrible,

thanks in part to gta onlines own terribleness ,

it has rekindled what I loved about mp3 online

#23 Posted by blamix99 (1327 posts) -

I felt that the gunplay in GTA V was weaker than in MP3.

the only thing that sucks in MP3 is that you can't use a grenade

#24 Posted by sukraj (20586 posts) -

@blamix99 said:

@Bardock47 said:

I felt that the gunplay in GTA V was weaker than in MP3.

the only thing that sucks in MP3 is that you can't use a grenade

isn't there any grenades or moltov in MP3

#25 Edited by bezza2011 (1914 posts) -

the only thing what gets me about the gameplay is the melee combat is probably the worst combat i have ever seen in a game, in GTAV try and punch and kick people, i dare you and what you get is an unfluid mess of stupid things and never know what they will do, they really need to work on that, it's basically promoting me to use guns to kill people than to just have a fist fight

#26 Posted by PAL360 (26302 posts) -

@turtlethetaffer said:

Even still, their games are "incredible technical achievements," yet the actual gameplay is far from the best.

And its also far from the worse. Go back and play GTA III and Vice City on the PS2 - the gameplay has improved MASSIVE amounts.

GTA V and the way it controls is very good, as well as damn near everything in GTA V.

I agree. GTAV gunplay is still far from perfect, but it's a damn improvement over previous games.

#27 Posted by blamix99 (1327 posts) -

@sukraj said:

@blamix99 said:

@Bardock47 said:

I felt that the gunplay in GTA V was weaker than in MP3.

the only thing that sucks in MP3 is that you can't use a grenade

isn't there any grenades or moltov in MP3

nope, there is a grenade launcher though. i don't know in multiplayer mode though

#28 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (4482 posts) -

Rockstar doesn't struggle to make good gameplay, they can, but they won't because their fans don't know what good gameplay is, a fact they'l continue to exploit, just like Bethesda.

But you never know, maybe one day the fans will eventually have standards and demand better. :D hopefully !

#29 Posted by happyduds77 (1038 posts) -

Yeah they push technical boundaries, but they struggle with good character movements and gunplay.

#30 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (16797 posts) -

The cover mechanics and gunplay are just poop in GTAV. Don't get me started on the controls for airplanes and helicopters. HOLY HELL, am I playing an arcade game or a simulator? The game asks you at times to perform some very specific tasks that the gameplay mechanics dont support. Landing a plane INSIDE the cargo hold of another plane is impossible when flying the plane totally sucks.

#31 Posted by Gargus (2147 posts) -

They don't need to is why. When you release a game and get sales in the millions on day one you don't need to worry about good gameplay.

Rockstar is about flash, style and bright shiny things. That's pretty much it. They also have a mostly fanbase made up of kids who don't go for substance, they want their childlike brains to be stimulated for a little bit and that's it so they don't have to go for substance.

Ive never been impressed by anything rockstar has done. Everything they is pretty much been ripped off from a dozen or more movies. Its usually "bad guy that does bad things quits the bad lifestyle but then is brought back into the lifestyle to do bad things again" for most of their games and that old schtick has been done to death like GTA4 and RDR for instance were pretty much 100% stolen from various action movies and westerns without a single original thought. Everyone praisers houser for being such a great writer because most of rockstars fanbase isn't old enough to have seen a lot of older movies and could reference them to his games. Sure Quentin tarantino does it constantly but he does it with love and manages to create something uniquely his, houser on the other hand just rips off shit.

Rockstar, and GTA in particular have gained a fanbase out of nowhere for no real reason really. It is just cool to like GTA because so many 13 year old kids got to play something violent and M rated as kids as a mass that now they all shout the mantra of how awesome GTA and rockstar is awesome. It all boils down to GTA now being the poster boy for 12 year old boys introductions into sex and violence in entertainment which makes them bullet proof because they have a huge base of fans that 1) Have no idea how mediocre the games really are because all they want is to kill hookers, 2) Don't really play or are interested in better games because they aren't hooker killing violent, 3) Have absent minded parents that will buy them GTA just so they are quiet in their rooms, 4) Cant think for themselves and only want to be cool like all the other kids their age playing GTA.

I mean Christ you don't need a better example of how stupid GTA and rockstar fans are than by reading them talk about online how amazing the soundtrack is for GTA games.....soundtrack in GTA......its just a bunch of old songs written and performed by real musicians from decades ago put together.....that's a complilation not a soundtrack. And yet these morons act like rockstar created the soundtrack themselves.

Rockstar applies itself to the lowest common denominator so they don't need substance because they have flash.

#32 Edited by biggest_loser (23900 posts) -

Its well documented now that Rockstar pressure media outlets for top reviews. I loved GTAIV but have been underwhelmed by Red Dead, Max Payne 3 and GTAV.

There's nothing exceptional about the actual game play of those three titles in spite of their production values.

MP3 has the best gunplay of a Rockstar game but why did it take so long to make a straight, linear shooter? With all these resources, teams and such it took them years for something other developers could punch out in 12 to 18 months.

They need some new writers as well because those games had hopeless storylines. MP3 in particular made a hash of that series fiction, ignoring everything that happened in the second game.

The reason these games sell well is because they're a huge brand now. GTA is like Call of Duty - its a big, over-hyped blockbuster that will become increasingly simplified to appeal to the masses.

#33 Posted by sukraj (20586 posts) -

@blamix99 said:

@sukraj said:

@blamix99 said:

@Bardock47 said:

I felt that the gunplay in GTA V was weaker than in MP3.

the only thing that sucks in MP3 is that you can't use a grenade

isn't there any grenades or moltov in MP3

nope, there is a grenade launcher though. i don't know in multiplayer mode though

Thanks

#34 Posted by Martin_G_N (1652 posts) -

@biggest_loser: Comparing GTA to Call of Duty is so wrong. Rockstar actually make improvements from game to game, and uses tons of resources to make the game as good as it can possibly be. Not really limited by time either since they can easily use 6 years making a game. On a technical level, GTA 5 and Red dead Redemtion is mindblowing, especially on that old hardware. Look at all other open world games out there, and see how boring and simple they are compared to what Rockstar's games are. Fallout 3, Skyrim, and Obliovion as examples, are nice looking games, but the worlds are dead, everything is too random, and there are basicly 3 voice actors. It's alot of work making games like GTA and RDR, and no one else is close. But like all games, they have room for improvements.

Max Payne 3 was a solid game aswell.

#35 Posted by MBirdy88 (6245 posts) -

Ugh yet another bad little gamrer kid that needs checkpoints every 2 seconds. gtfo.

#36 Posted by turtlethetaffer (15572 posts) -

@MBirdy88: That's not it at all. I've beaten Dark souls twice now and am gearing up for a third playthrough. The difference is that, in that game, most deaths are mistakes the player makes; by the end of the game, a truly skilled player will be able to run through the majority of the areas and take little to no damage at all. With GTA, the controls are not that great, and that can lead to some deaths that aren't necessarily the players fault. Are you telling me that it's fun to die in a mission, get sent out into the game world MILES AWAY from where the mission marker is and have to drive back to it, and also hear the same dialogue over and over again? For Christs sake, that'd be like if Dark Souls sent you back to the beginning of the game for ever death you have. Except it'd be a little more tolerable because the repetition would allow for memorization and speed running. With GTA, the mechanics can lead to really bullshitty deaths.

#37 Posted by turtlethetaffer (15572 posts) -

@Gargus: Wow. that makes a lot of sense. To me, whenever someone mentions how great the old GTA games were, I look at screenshots... And... well they've aged terribly. But then I look at the gunplay mechanics and think "how in the hell did those ever get a review above a six?" Guess you're right... People mistake the constant swearing, violence and sex for being mature, so they felt cool as kids playing it. Aaaannnnndddd now those kids are grown up and they still trip nostalgia balls.

#38 Edited by MBirdy88 (6245 posts) -

@turtlethetaffer said:

@MBirdy88: That's not it at all. I've beaten Dark souls twice now and am gearing up for a third playthrough. The difference is that, in that game, most deaths are mistakes the player makes; by the end of the game, a truly skilled player will be able to run through the majority of the areas and take little to no damage at all. With GTA, the controls are not that great, and that can lead to some deaths that aren't necessarily the players fault. Are you telling me that it's fun to die in a mission, get sent out into the game world MILES AWAY from where the mission marker is and have to drive back to it, and also hear the same dialogue over and over again? For Christs sake, that'd be like if Dark Souls sent you back to the beginning of the game for ever death you have. Except it'd be a little more tolerable because the repetition would allow for memorization and speed running. With GTA, the mechanics can lead to really bullshitty deaths.

If you was referring to the shooting mechanics in pre-GTA IV I would agree... controls is no excuse for GTAIV onwards though... and yea it aint the best either.

Comparing a very static game like Dark souls ... where everything happens in the exact same way every time ... is not at all fair. I'm not saying its skilless, but having the same thing happen every time, enemy locations, enemy attacks ... dark souls in terms of difficulty is very much just "remember this for next time" ... I hardly call it a benchmark for skill based on stellar game mechanics. such an honor goes to FPS or MOBA games... but not dark souls.

hell, dark souls would be a joke like most games if it had more checkpoints.

Also I should point you in the direction of Uncharted and Last of Us ... their mechanics are nearly as dire and look at their scores.

to me making GTA is far more impressive than the above 2 corridor games where again, everything happens in exactly the same way,

#39 Posted by turtlethetaffer (15572 posts) -

@MBirdy88: Did you play the same game as me? The controls for GTAIV are utter ass. I once tried to throw a grenade off a roof but wound up actually running off the roof somehow, dying.

And my only reason for bringing up dark Souls is that you are more or less in control. The fact that everything is the same in each area whenever you go through makes it so that you are in control of what happens to you.

Let me put it this way... If GTAIV had better controls then maybe there wouldn't be a need for checkpoints. Most of the game is a shooting gallery anyway (not saying that's good or bad, just that it is what it is). Taking cover can more or less guarantee safety in most situations. But Niko does NOT control well at all, and the cover mechanics are incredibly hazardous. You could mean to take cover behind a wall, only to have Niko run to the other side and take cover on the side that is being fired at, leaving you wide open and easily killed. When shit like that happens, checkpoints would be nice.

And also, another reason I brought up Dark Souls is because it's not an easy game at all. Regardless of whether or not you think the game is good or not, you can't sit there and tell me that it's easy. I was just trying to demonstrate that I'm not a "gamer kid who wants checkpoints every five seconds" or whatever it is you said.

#40 Edited by Vatusus (3766 posts) -

When it comes to action/adventure open-worlds, they DO make the best gameplay. Sorry, I get bored of Saints Row in 30 min. Also, Max Payne 3 had fantastic old school TPS gameplay. Try again

#41 Posted by turtlethetaffer (15572 posts) -

@Vatusus: How is it the best again...?

#42 Edited by Bread_or_Decide (16797 posts) -

And while we're complaining about GTAV I might as well just say it again, driving around for hours and hours is not FUN GAMEPLAY. Take me to the action. Buying a jump suit for a heist is NOT A MISSION so why is it a mission? Even fast travel is a chore, call a cab...wait for a cab. When I play games it's to escape the outside world NOT to reexperience the joys of waiting for a cab or long car rides in another way.

I honest to God can't believe critics these days. When games like GTAV, Battlefield 4, and countless other titles come out the gate with raves. Then when we play them we're like...dafuq?

The saving grace of GTAV is the SKIP feature on missions. After trying forever to escape the cops in the last mission I just skipped the damn thing. Then skipped the rest just to finish this stupid game. 30 hours of repetitive missions and long drives is NOT FUN. I think critics focus too much on the open world and not enough on just how lame 50% of the missions are.

#43 Edited by Vatusus (3766 posts) -

@turtlethetaffer said:

@Vatusus: How is it the best again...?

How it is not? Tell me another open-world action/adventure game involving TPS shooting mechanics with better gunplay than Rockstar games... and please, dont say Saints Row, cause its gameplay is ass. Theres no sense of danger and its too arcadey for me liking. The only other open world game one could argue it has better shooting/gameplay than R* is Sleeping Dogs. Other than it, I cant see any other competing with R* gameplay

#44 Edited by Bread_or_Decide (16797 posts) -

@Vatusus said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

@Vatusus: How is it the best again...?

How it is not? Tell me another open-world action/adventure game involving TPS shooting mechanics with better gunplay than Rockstar games... and please, dont say Saints Row, cause its gameplay is ass. Theres no sense of danger and its too arcadey for me liking. The only other open world game one could argue it has better shooting/gameplay than R* is Sleeping Dogs. Other than it, I cant see any other competing with R* gameplay

Better gunplay? You mean the auto aim and the reticule so tiny you barely see it? Or how about the shoddy cover mechanics? There are alot of good things about GTAV. Gunplay is not one of them.

#45 Posted by Vatusus (3766 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

@MBirdy88: That's not it at all. I've beaten Dark souls twice now and am gearing up for a third playthrough. The difference is that, in that game, most deaths are mistakes the player makes; by the end of the game, a truly skilled player will be able to run through the majority of the areas and take little to no damage at all. With GTA, the controls are not that great, and that can lead to some deaths that aren't necessarily the players fault. Are you telling me that it's fun to die in a mission, get sent out into the game world MILES AWAY from where the mission marker is and have to drive back to it, and also hear the same dialogue over and over again? For Christs sake, that'd be like if Dark Souls sent you back to the beginning of the game for ever death you have. Except it'd be a little more tolerable because the repetition would allow for memorization and speed running. With GTA, the mechanics can lead to really bullshitty deaths.

If you was referring to the shooting mechanics in pre-GTA IV I would agree... controls is no excuse for GTAIV onwards though... and yea it aint the best either.

Comparing a very static game like Dark souls ... where everything happens in the exact same way every time ... is not at all fair. I'm not saying its skilless, but having the same thing happen every time, enemy locations, enemy attacks ... dark souls in terms of difficulty is very much just "remember this for next time" ... I hardly call it a benchmark for skill based on stellar game mechanics. such an honor goes to FPS or MOBA games... but not dark souls.

hell, dark souls would be a joke like most games if it had more checkpoints.

Also I should point you in the direction of Uncharted and Last of Us ... their mechanics are nearly as dire and look at their scores.

to me making GTA is far more impressive than the above 2 corridor games where again, everything happens in exactly the same way,

Wut? Thats wrong, very very wrong. Dark Souls enemy patterns change depending on your death count (in demon's it depended on the world tendency i.e. Black or white). They become more agressive and take more damage if you die a certain number of times or if you arent in your human form. Have you even played DS? Cause it sure doesnt look like it.

And how exactly does anything change in GTA IV? Cause I beat that game 3 or 4 times (cant remember) and I dont remember seeing enemy patterns changing. Sure there was a couple of choosing mission A or mission B, but I hardly would call it "choices" when those exact missions would play like every other corridor shooter out there with nothing changing in between whatsoever.

#46 Posted by Vatusus (3766 posts) -

@Vatusus said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

@Vatusus: How is it the best again...?

How it is not? Tell me another open-world action/adventure game involving TPS shooting mechanics with better gunplay than Rockstar games... and please, dont say Saints Row, cause its gameplay is ass. Theres no sense of danger and its too arcadey for me liking. The only other open world game one could argue it has better shooting/gameplay than R* is Sleeping Dogs. Other than it, I cant see any other competing with R* gameplay

Better gunplay? You mean the auto aim and the reticule so tiny you barely see it? Or how about the shoddy cover mechanics? There are alot of good things about GTAV. Gunplay is not one of them.

Never said it was the best TPS gunplay overal, but its among the best in open-world games. One cant expect a open world game that does many other gameplay styles to have the same gunplay as another more linear game dedicated to a specific gameplay element. GTA gunplay is very serviceable for a open-world game, and within its genre you cant find much better

#47 Posted by MBirdy88 (6245 posts) -

@Vatusus said:

@MBirdy88 said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

@MBirdy88: That's not it at all. I've beaten Dark souls twice now and am gearing up for a third playthrough. The difference is that, in that game, most deaths are mistakes the player makes; by the end of the game, a truly skilled player will be able to run through the majority of the areas and take little to no damage at all. With GTA, the controls are not that great, and that can lead to some deaths that aren't necessarily the players fault. Are you telling me that it's fun to die in a mission, get sent out into the game world MILES AWAY from where the mission marker is and have to drive back to it, and also hear the same dialogue over and over again? For Christs sake, that'd be like if Dark Souls sent you back to the beginning of the game for ever death you have. Except it'd be a little more tolerable because the repetition would allow for memorization and speed running. With GTA, the mechanics can lead to really bullshitty deaths.

If you was referring to the shooting mechanics in pre-GTA IV I would agree... controls is no excuse for GTAIV onwards though... and yea it aint the best either.

Comparing a very static game like Dark souls ... where everything happens in the exact same way every time ... is not at all fair. I'm not saying its skilless, but having the same thing happen every time, enemy locations, enemy attacks ... dark souls in terms of difficulty is very much just "remember this for next time" ... I hardly call it a benchmark for skill based on stellar game mechanics. such an honor goes to FPS or MOBA games... but not dark souls.

hell, dark souls would be a joke like most games if it had more checkpoints.

Also I should point you in the direction of Uncharted and Last of Us ... their mechanics are nearly as dire and look at their scores.

to me making GTA is far more impressive than the above 2 corridor games where again, everything happens in exactly the same way,

Wut? Thats wrong, very very wrong. Dark Souls enemy patterns change depending on your death count (in demon's it depended on the world tendency i.e. Black or white). They become more agressive and take more damage if you die a certain number of times or if you arent in your human form. Have you even played DS? Cause it sure doesnt look like it.

And how exactly does anything change in GTA IV? Cause I beat that game 3 or 4 times (cant remember) and I dont remember seeing enemy patterns changing. Sure there was a couple of choosing mission A or mission B, but I hardly would call it "choices" when those exact missions would play like every other corridor shooter out there with nothing changing in between whatsoever.

.... if that is true then I either didn't die enough or was in human too much, ebcause I can go down the majority of corridors in dark souls and know exactly where every enemy is every time.

GTA isnt't just missions... thats where the difference lies.

Project is a sum of its parts. he wants to know why its not as good? development time? resources to go towards something that is not the entire focus of the game (shootouts)

#48 Edited by turtlethetaffer (15572 posts) -

@Vatusus said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

@Vatusus: How is it the best again...?

How it is not? Tell me another open-world action/adventure game involving TPS shooting mechanics with better gunplay than Rockstar games... and please, dont say Saints Row, cause its gameplay is ass. Theres no sense of danger and its too arcadey for me liking. The only other open world game one could argue it has better shooting/gameplay than R* is Sleeping Dogs. Other than it, I cant see any other competing with R* gameplay

The gunplay is not that great compared to other TPS type games.

Also, Just cause 2. Never seen a game that allows for so much mayhem. It takes about thirty seconds to be able to pull off some kind of ridiculous stunt or cause some kind of carnage and destruction.

#49 Edited by ristactionjakso (5510 posts) -

Everybody likes the open world they offer in most of their games. GTA 5, RDR. They have interesting characters and a interesting world. But yes, their games do sometimes play like sh!t. Particularly why I like Sleeping Dogs more than GTA 5.

#50 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (4482 posts) -

So, I think GTA fans should start sending emails right now, telling rockstar they want better gameplay intead of bigger worlds and 50 side activities for people with a 40 second attention span. Before developement begins.

Once they naildown the core gameplay, then they can paste into bigger and bigger enviroments.