Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Could Rockstar make a war game?

45 replies to this topic

Poll: Do you guys think Rockstar could make a decent war-based game? (79 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you guys think Rockstar could make a decent war-based game?

  1. Yes (53 votes [71.62%])

    Percentage of vote: 71.62%

  2. No (21 votes [28.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 28.38%

Vote Guests cannot vote
Xcommunicated
  • Xcommunicated

    Bunch of slack-jawed faggots around here.

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2002
  • United-States

#31

Posted 16 July 2013 - 08:27 PM

QUOTE (universetwisters @ Monday, Jul 15 2013, 22:35)
I highly doubt Rockstar will ever finish agent.

I'm certain we will see it in the next gen. My guess is R*^ only got so far along with it and then realized they wouldn't be able to get GTAV out this gen if they didn't shift all of their focus to that project. GTA is where the money is, so it would have been financially stupid for them to have pushed Agent out this gen and then let the GTA series go dormant for 7+ years.


But yeah, Agent is the 'war' game I want to see from Rockstar. Cold War espionage is an interesting piece of history to explore and should make for a stellar game.

sublimelabs
  • sublimelabs

    The Jimmy Rustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Oct 2011

#32

Posted 16 July 2013 - 09:20 PM

I'd be down with a story-driven, linear war game by Rockstar. They'd definitely be able to make something that stands out from other war games in the medium.

Fine with Agent, though. Cold War espionage is fascinating.

Fireman
  • Fireman

    Cunning Stunter

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2005

#33

Posted 17 July 2013 - 11:12 AM

QUOTE (gionascm2 @ Tuesday, Jul 16 2013, 19:57)
QUOTE (Fireman @ Tuesday, Jul 16 2013, 15:37)
QUOTE (gionascm2 @ Tuesday, Jul 16 2013, 18:31)
If R* ever chose to make a war game, I believe they could make something really innovative that stands out from all the others. Otherwise they would not set out to make such a game...

... which they haven't.

...Which proves my point. If R* could not make a proper war game, they wouldn't make one. They haven't.

So you voted "no'' as well then right?

Else I don't understand your posts.


Durden
  • Durden

    The annoying voice in your head

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2012
  • None

#34

Posted 18 July 2013 - 01:35 AM

QUOTE (Fireman @ Wednesday, Jul 17 2013, 07:12)
QUOTE (gionascm2 @ Tuesday, Jul 16 2013, 19:57)
QUOTE (Fireman @ Tuesday, Jul 16 2013, 15:37)
QUOTE (gionascm2 @ Tuesday, Jul 16 2013, 18:31)
If R* ever chose to make a war game, I believe they could make something really innovative that stands out from all the others. Otherwise they would not set out to make such a game...

... which they haven't.

...Which proves my point. If R* could not make a proper war game, they wouldn't make one. They haven't.

So you voted "no'' as well then right?

Else I don't understand your posts.

Read the OP more carefully.

QUOTE
Do you guys think, if Rockstar was up for it, ...


I voted yes on the poll, for the aforementioned reasons I stated. If R* were up to make a war game (poll question hypothesizes that they are), then they could pull it off correctly in a very innovative manner.

Fireman
  • Fireman

    Cunning Stunter

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2005

#35

Posted 18 July 2013 - 11:52 AM

QUOTE (gionascm2 @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 01:35)
QUOTE (Fireman @ Wednesday, Jul 17 2013, 07:12)

So you voted "no'' as well then right?

Else I don't understand your posts.

Read the OP more carefully.

QUOTE
Do you guys think, if Rockstar was up for it, ...


I voted yes on the poll, for the aforementioned reasons I stated. If R* were up to make a war game (poll question hypothesizes that they are), then they could pull it off correctly in a very innovative manner.

I don't think that was the intention of the OP.

In my eyes he just ment would Rockstar be able to make a good war game (as the title suggests). Which is no, according to you, since else they would've made one already.

Wether they're up for it doesn't really matter, if I'm up for running 1000 miles, but I can't do it, I still won't be able to do it.

If R* suddenly does decide to make a wargame, to you that's enough proof that they could make a good wargame?

That's some very silly argumentation.

sublimelabs
  • sublimelabs

    The Jimmy Rustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Oct 2011

#36

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:18 PM

Maybe it's just me being a fanboy, but it seems like Rockstar has immense passion for every one of their projects. Their games are polarizing, but I don't think people can deny the heart that goes into making them. If they decide to make a war game, it's almost guaranteed that they'll take it seriously because it's something they want to make.

Durden
  • Durden

    The annoying voice in your head

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2012
  • None

#37

Posted 18 July 2013 - 01:50 PM

QUOTE (Fireman @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 07:52)
QUOTE (gionascm2 @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 01:35)
QUOTE (Fireman @ Wednesday, Jul 17 2013, 07:12)

So you voted "no'' as well then right?

Else I don't understand your posts.

Read the OP more carefully.

QUOTE
Do you guys think, if Rockstar was up for it, ...


I voted yes on the poll, for the aforementioned reasons I stated. If R* were up to make a war game (poll question hypothesizes that they are), then they could pull it off correctly in a very innovative manner.

I don't think that was the intention of the OP.

In my eyes he just ment would Rockstar be able to make a good war game (as the title suggests). Which is no, according to you, since else they would've made one already.

Wether they're up for it doesn't really matter, if I'm up for running 1000 miles, but I can't do it, I still won't be able to do it.

If R* suddenly does decide to make a wargame, to you that's enough proof that they could make a good wargame?

That's some very silly argumentation.

You're arguments are pretty silly.

QUOTE
Which is no, according to you, since else they would've made one already.


Its called waiting for the right time. Maybe they're too busy right now with other games? Maybe they're waiting for better technology to make a war game? Maybe they haven't pieced together all their ideas yet and are still planning how the game would work?

I could say the same thing about Max Payne 3. Before MP3 was released, I could've said "R* can't make a linear TPS because they would've done it already". I could also use AGENT: "R* couldn't make a quality historical game about cold war espionage because they would've made it already"

So, you see, that logic is facetious at best.

Fireman
  • Fireman

    Cunning Stunter

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2005

#38

Posted 18 July 2013 - 02:05 PM Edited by Fireman, 18 July 2013 - 02:15 PM.

QUOTE (gionascm2 @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 13:50)
I could say the same thing about Max Payne 3. Before MP3 was released, I could've said "R* can't make a linear TPS because they would've done it already". I could also use AGENT: "R* couldn't make a quality historical game about cold war espionage because they would've made it already"

So, you see, that logic is facetious at best.

Did you just call your own arguments facetious?

That's fantastic.

This reasoning came from you, not me:

QUOTE
...Which proves my point. If R* could not make a proper war game, they wouldn't make one. They haven't.


My own arguments for R* not being able to make proper war game have nothing to do with this. I just thought it was weird that you first say they currently can't make a wargame (else they would've; again, this is what you said, not me) and now say they definitely can as long as they think they can (lol).

QUOTE
Its called waiting for the right time. Maybe they're too busy right now with other games? Maybe they're waiting for better technology to make a war game? Maybe they haven't pieced together all their ideas yet and are still planning how the game would work?


Or guess what? Maybe they can't do it or can't compete against the wargames already available. What makes you think they can make a good wargame apart from them having made GTA (which isn't an argument)?

Durden
  • Durden

    The annoying voice in your head

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2012
  • None

#39

Posted 18 July 2013 - 02:43 PM

Fireman, you seem to be forgetting that the thread is hypothesizing that R* ARE making a war game. The question asks "if R* were up for it..." So in this instance, R* are making a war game.

How do I know it would be good, and not sink to the bottom like lots of other war games? Their track record. I don't even need to use GTA. Look at any of their other games, and they are part of the elite games in that genre. MP3 is an elite AAA TPS. RDR received little to no negativity. Bully was a refreshing, innovative experience that was received quite well from critics. Their games do not disappoint.

Given these 2 key factors (willingness to make a war game, and their track record), it is essentially unarguable that I am correct in this argument.

Fireman
  • Fireman

    Cunning Stunter

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2005

#40

Posted 18 July 2013 - 05:32 PM Edited by Fireman, 18 July 2013 - 05:34 PM.

QUOTE (gionascm2 @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 14:43)
Given these 2 key factors (willingness to make a war game, and their track record), it is essentially unarguable that I am correct in this argument.

In this case any studio who made games with decent ratings (even though in a completely different genre) would be able to make a good wargame as long as they want too?

If that's your argumentation, yeah it's completely bulletproof.

Now if only there was something that R* has never done before and have almost no experience with... How about first-person shooting! Or how about realistic tank physics, or detailed weapons with more than four polygons and realistic handling and aiming. Heck, having recoil on weapons would be a good start!

But I'm sure they can just pull that out of their ass, because they're Rockstar, right? Or they could just make GTA and put people in uniforms, that'd be a great army game wouldn't it?

It'll get a R*/10 from me!

Durden
  • Durden

    The annoying voice in your head

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2012
  • None

#41

Posted 18 July 2013 - 06:12 PM

You should add a new line to your signature.

I visit a forum because I love R*'s quality, yet I have no faith in them

You're not getting the point that, for all intents & purposes, R* want to make a war game. THAT is what separates R* from any other developer with a good track record.

Maybe the developers make a war game because that's what's mainstream, or because they just like producing a variety of game genres. R* on the other hand only make what they are comfortable making.

If R* don't have faith that they can nail a game just right, they won't bother. But they are bothering, in this instance.

Secura
  • Secura

    Fallen and Reborn

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • United-Kingdom

#42

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:17 PM Edited by Lightning Strike, 18 July 2013 - 08:22 PM.

I genuinely believe that they could pull off a war game, GTA V itself contains all the usual stuff you'd expect from one.

I though would like to see them tackle the storyline in a way very few games do, instead of glorifying war they'd criticise it in a similar way to Spec Ops: The Line did. I honestly felt that I didn't like the game after finishing it, I didn't like playing it, not because of the gameplay which was above average with its environmental interactivity but because the storyline itself made me feel very, very uncomfortable. It was undoubtedly one of the best games of 2012 but would I recommend playing it? f*ck no. The game itself made me feel strangely sick whilst playing it, I detested every choice I made and everything I did but I played on in the hope that the narrative would pull a proverbial curve-ball and show me some light at the end of the tunnel.

It didn't.

I really think that if Rockstar were to tackle the "war" genre of gaming that's the angle that they'd go for, I'm almost certain of it. Rockstar doesn't follow the usual cliches that so many other game developers fall into, in fact I distinctly remember Dan Houser himself saying that they'd intentionally go against what's popular in gaming because they didn't like the idea of being part of the usual, mainstream gaming audience. So the likelyhood of them ever bothering to make a game in this particular genre's low already, but for them to go down the usual route of glorifying the battles and soldiers will not happen, Rockstar would almost certainly give us a dark haunting storyline that'd make us want to wash our hands after playing it.

Would I play it though? f*ck yes.

Backfire6
  • Backfire6

    ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2013

#43

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:21 PM

I'm so tired of seeing war games. I'd probably boycott R* if they made one.

Secura
  • Secura

    Fallen and Reborn

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • United-Kingdom

#44

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:40 PM

QUOTE (Backfire6 @ Thursday, Jul 18 2013, 20:21)
I'm so tired of seeing war games. I'd probably boycott R* if they made one.

Once again, although the possibility of Rockstar ever creating a game like this is exceedingly low, if they did it'd probably be vastly different then what we're used to if we consider that they like to leave their mark on each genre they dip their toes into.

AceRay
  • AceRay

    In my restless dreams, I see that town...

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2010

#45

Posted 18 July 2013 - 09:14 PM

What are we talking about when we say "a war game?" Are we talking about R* making a First/Third Person military shooter? Or is it a game set during a war. I guess Agent is the later, and I can't imagine an RTS being made by R* so we're talking about shooters?

Pretty much Lightning's post about Spec Ops and being a deconstruction of military shooters, that's what made that game so haunting. Its less of a shooter and more of a psychological horror if you ask me, and that sounds weird, but it really is. Lightning said he wouldn't recommend that game, whereas I would say the opposite. If you play a lot of sh*tty CODs or whatever, then this game will make you realize what a twat you are for trying to full your heroic desires. If you think all military shooters are dumb violence, then this game will make you open your eyes and see that games can be art. This is one of the best psychological examinations I've seen since Silent Hill 2 and is an incredible experience.

Wasn't I supposed to be talking about R* making a war game? I guess I'd really like to see lots of "you bastard" moments, where the main character does horrible things to justify their goals while still believing they're the hero of the game. No real good guys, America saves the day bullsh*t that other games try to force down and try to show it as darkly as possible, seeing people's lives get destroyed and the main character reduced to just a shell of his former self. I don't want it to be exactly like The Line though, so maybe have it being where the main character gets progressively more crazy.

Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    Generic GTA Username™

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India

#46

Posted 19 July 2013 - 11:11 AM Edited by AceKingston, 19 July 2013 - 01:59 PM.

They definitely can. They always bring something unique to the table. Look at GTA, the world's first noted crime free roam game, they keep improving it over the years bringing new things to the table. Take in to account the main GTA's aka GTA 1, 2, 3, Vice City, San Andreas and IV. GTA 1 was the start, the beginning of an era, GTA 2 had improved graphics and was a step forward. GTA 3 was the most IMO revolutionary, 3D graphics among tons of other improvements. Vice City was a great and classic 80's themed game with an awesome soundtrack. San Andreas was a ghetto GTA again different. GTA IV included a modern richly detailed Liberty City and the first HD GTA game and it was again different, Niko seeking the American dream.

Same for Red Dead, true Red Dead Revolver wasn't a big hit but it was still unique, a western game, but RDR easily beat it. An Open-World western game and it was just brilliant.

Bully was again different, look it was a school themed GTA game, how cool is that?

And there are others like The Warriors, Max Payne etc.

If R* need to make a war game, a World War I or II game would be good. Those games are really emotional and stuff. And we hardly see them around anymore, all FPS'es like CoD, BF, MoH etc are focusing on modern day. True, there is Red Orchestra too but really other than that it's pretty much dead.

All in all, I don't think we'll ever see a war game even for the next-gen. Rockstar have still got a bunch of titles to finish and start like Bully 2, a new RDR, Max Payne 4, Agent and of course new GTA's. We might see one in another ten to fifteen years but I really don't think it's going to happen anytime sooner.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users