'5 reason why Rockstar is failing'

[MosquitoSmasher]

I'm subscribed on youtube to this dude's videos, cause some of his reviews were cool and i agreed with him. He now uploaded a video where he speaks about Rockstar and how he finds that they are failing this generation. Don't worry, it's not an angry rant about the unfortunete delay of the game at all.

 

Basically he mentions five reasons why he thinks Rockstar is failing. Things like their games being too realistic and not fun, uninteresting characters and what not. I also replied there, and i explained to him why i pretty much disagree with everything. It's an interesting video though, and i guess i'd like to know what ya'll have to say on this. Let's keep it friendly. Wanna read my replies there? The name's (Thijs van Abs)

 

Peace

 

 

[ryuclan]

Can't take any video serious with a font like that. It screams "I used windows movie maker," and "I use sh*tty screen wipes."

[Finn 7 five 11]

Okay I don't even like GTA IV that much compared to other GTA's, but his points already sound stupid after about 15 seconds in.

 

5) Unlikeable characters - "Niko was a boring character, he just did what everyone told him to do and when he did do his own thing he was an annoying dick."

- So wait, GTA III had Claude who didn't even speak was a completely independent man who never did what he was told?

 

- Does this guy even know the meaning of "An annoying dick"? An annoying dick would be someone who did assholish things just to piss people off without any reasoning, I didn't like Niko, but he didn't really do this at all.

 

I'll give this rookie the time of day with his poor descriptive skills and watch the rest and give some feedback, honestly though this thread is pointless Mosquito, why not come up with your own reasons why you feel that Rockstar is failing and be a little original rather than listening to some 15 year old using a cheap ass capture card and Windows Movie Maker (Hello Sony Vegas????)

 

 

Edit: 5) The main Character of L.A Noire, I didn't even care about him, however I did like John Marston a lot, but 1/4, that's not a very good hit ratio."

 

- Okay so L.A Noire wasn't even Rockstar's game and they had not a whole lot to do with who the character was as they came into the development cycle halfway through and Brendan Mcnamara was in charge of who he wanted the character to be like, so let us bring that back down to 1/2 characters who the guy in the video did not like.

 

 

Edit: 4) "The games do not live up to past games"

 

- Well I kind of agree with this, but it's subjective, the nostalgia of old games will always hold you back, and also he said "They can't live up to past games"

He is saying that they do not live up to past games, and they can't live up to past games, what kind of statement is that?

Edited February 2, 2013 by finn4life

[MosquitoSmasher]

Okay I don't even like GTA IV that much compared to other GTA's, but his points already sound stupid after about 15 seconds in.

 

5) Unlikeable characters - "Niko was a boring character, he just did what everyone told him to do and when he did do his own thing he was an annoying dick."

So wait, GTA III had Claude who didn't even speak was a completely independent man who never did what he was told?

 

Does this guy even know the meaning of "An annoying dick"? An annoying dick would be someone who did assholish things just to piss people off without any reasoning, I didn't like Niko, but he didn't really do this at all.

 

I'll give this rookie the time of day with his poor descriptive skills and watch the rest and give some feedback, honestly though this thread is pointless Mosquito, why not come up with your own reasons why you feel that Rockstar is failing and be a little original rather than listening to some 15 year old using a cheap ass capture card and Windows Movie Maker (Hello Sony Vegas????)

 

No i think you totally misunderstand me then. Cause i don't feel Rockstar is failing at all. I think you haven't been reading my many replies on that video there, cause i explain in full detail why i disagree with the guy. It really wasn't my intention to say i think they are failing, hell...they remain one of my favorite, if not favorite developers of all time. I saw this video and then i thought maybe it's interesting to discuss these points. See what other people on this forum think of it...see if they think this guy has good points or not. That was my intention my friend...nothing else.

 

I 'hated' Rockstar for a second when i read that news about the delay and because i DO feel they mislead their fans bigtime, but all else...i love their work and their view on game development.

[ryuclan]

Misleading is all in perception.

[Finn 7 five 11]

Sorry Mosquito, I should have added into that:

 

"Why didn't you make your own list of why Rockstar Is or Isn't failing" I missed a word there, lol.

 

3) Bad missions

- Okay a fair point he makes there, the missions weren't necessarily bad though, just repetitive

 

2) Realistic "The game need to be realistic."

- They aren't making the game any more realistic in many ways other than the environment, anything else that was percieved as "realism" isn't.

"Shoot-outs sucked because you stumble and move slow."

No that is the sh*tty clunky physics of GTA IV, not realism.

[MosquitoSmasher]

Sorry Mosquito, I should have added into that:

 

"Why didn't you make your own list of why Rockstar Is or Isn't failing" I missed a word there, lol.

 

3) Bad missions

- Okay a fair point he makes there, the missions weren't necessarily bad though, just repetitive

 

2) Realistic "The game need to be realistic."

- They aren't making the game any more realistic in many ways other than the environment, anything else that was percieved as "realism" isn't.

"Shoot-outs sucked because you stumble and move slow."

No that is the sh*tty clunky physics of GTA IV, not realism.

Ah ok, no problem man.

 

I agree about the missions to an extent, they weren't as diverse as the previous GTA games and i'm damn sure GTA V takes care of that problem. But still i did enjoy the missions a lot. And yeah exactly, the 'clumsy' and slow controls of moving and shooting are the mechanics, RDR already did this a lot better and so did MP3, so i'm not worried about that for V. But i think the dude is complaining about the smallest stuff, personally i got used to the new controls and movement and shooting pretty quickly. But i'm damn happy we'll be getting similar mechanics to RDR and MP3 in V though, oh for sure!

[GrandMaster Smith]

In a sense I can agree.

 

 

GTA: TLAD was so boring I played through it once and that was that. I'm honestly not even sure if I even finished tbh. I've even redownloaded it to give it another try and it just feels dry and Johnny was unlikable to me. It just felt half assed and not a true R* story. It was so disappointing I didn't even bother with BOGT, though it did look to have more interesting missions, playing in the same city with a few new cars and updated draw distance just sounded like TLAD all over again.

 

I love RDR but every mission started feeling extremely stale after a while. "I'm looking for somebody, let me help you stop a train.. I'm looking for somebody, let me fight your Mexican revolution.." The dialogue just felt very repetitive and the things you had to do didn't make much sense.

 

I've also only beat IV once or twice too, every other time I've try to get into it I just get bored once I start getting into Algonquin.. then it just turns into "I'm looking for somebody, let me kill this random guy.. I'm looking for somebody, let me go on a gay date..."

 

This delay in V better be to really amp it up. Idk what todo if V just becomes a giant flop.

[Adler]

Can't take any video serious with a font like that. It screams "I used windows movie maker," and "I use sh*tty screen wipes."

This pretty much. If a video isn't professional in its presentation, it usually isn't professional in the quality of its content. This video is no exception.

[Algonquin Assassin]

I must be one of the only original fans that thinks R* current gen games destroy their last gen counterparts.

[Secura]

 

I must be one of the only original fans that thinks R* current gen games destroy their last gen counterparts.

No you are not, my friend.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Lightning Strike

[Algonquin Assassin]

I must be one of the only original fans that thinks R* current gen games destroy their last gen counterparts.

No, you are not my friend.

Good to see I'm not alone.

[GrandMaster Smith]

I must be one of the only original fans that thinks R* current gen games destroy their last gen counterparts.

In a technical sense they do, but as far as fun factor I'm not really sure...

 

 

The main thing that kept some of these games alive for me were the multiplayer (especially RDR's)

 

Their worlds that they've created are all amazing, I'm still wowed by Liberty City to this day, but they're just more to look at rather than truly interact with.

 

I think having such a devotion to creating HD worlds takes away some of their creativity to fill that world with things to do. Hopefully this is why V got delayed, it's been roughly 5 years but maybe that's just what it takes to make something that truly delivers.

[Secura]

I must be one of the only original fans that thinks R* current gen games destroy their last gen counterparts.

No, you are not my friend.

Good to see I'm not alone.

Indeed, it's a pity so many people see IV as unfinished and clunky when it in actual fact is something far more then that. It's a fantastic game with a brilliant atmosphere, fantastic main character and revolutionary gameplay mechanics.

 

Well as time goes on hopefully IV gains the reputation it so dearly deserves .

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

In a technical sense they do, but as far as fun factor I'm not really sure...

 

 

 

I've had as much fun playing GTA IV, RDR, LA Noire and MP3 as I did with R*'s last gen games. Maybe even more due to their superior story telling.

 

"Fun factor" is completely subjective. It sh*ts me when I see people in the GTA V forum saying things like "They're bringing the fun back" because it's made out to be a universal claim.

 

I'm not accusing you of course, but it's annoying when people do it. I know a lot of people found GTA IV boring, but it doesn't mean everyone feels like that.

 

Honestly VC is the only game R* made last gen I can still enjoy. Everything else is lackluster IMO and that's coming from someone who's been a R* fan for 15 years.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Miamivicecity

[The-King]

[Wayne Daniels]

LOL. About 5 minutes in when he kept say fun every 2 seconds I realised he was trolling.

 

He sounds like a massive saints row fanboy.

 

And he bagged out Red Dead Redemption, I now hate him

Edited February 2, 2013 by gta_aus

[Exkabewbikadid]

This guy trying to make a point is like a flaccid dick trying to penetrate a bucket of sand.

 

IMO, RDR has been their true masterpiece this generation. The story was superb, the map was amazing, the gunplay was immense fun, and there were plenty of things to do with an all around great sense of progression.

 

LA Noire was also a great game that brought some actual innovation to the table. I will say it had some boring spots here and there and I wasn't too pleased to learn Cole Phelps was going behind my back and banging some German slut when my hands weren't on the controls, but overall they did a superb job capturing the time period.

 

On the other hand TLAD and MP3 were my least favorite. TLAD bored me to tears and the whole cheese dick biker culture theme felt contrived. I've said my part on MP3 enough times, so I'll leave it at that.

 

IV vanilla has always been a mixed bag for me. Niko's character grew on me over time, but my biggest complaint with the game was the complete lack of rewarding gameplay. Niko was stuck with exactly the same skills through the whole game. No boosts in endurance, health or armor. No new weapon or fighting skills to be gained. No stealth to be used. No high power weapons to unlock except the rocket launcher. Etc, etc. For me that is the RPG-style "fun" that went missing and that's the kind of fun I think we'll see return in V. Some will gripe that gaining such abilities makes the game too easy, to which I'll respond, the missions should get equally more challenging so that you'll want to gain new abilities. It's all about giving the player a lot of creativity in approaching the missions which greatly extends replay value.

[Sgt. Foley]

In a technical sense they do, but as far as fun factor I'm not really sure...

 

 

 

What about the fun fair?

[Remix]

Ha! I remember this Youtuber. He banned me about three years ago when I commented "Hey Whity, I think your intro is a bit too long but otherwise not a bad review". Trust me when I say this, if you've watched his videos you'd know that he's not in any place to form an intelligent opinion or insight into a video game. He was always extremely hypocritical and his reviews all boiled down to "Ugh, yeah, this game aint that good you know? All I axe is that the game was better yo".

 

This video just makes it seem like he's trying to find extremely tiny issues in otherwise extremely good games. I'm not blinded by my love for Rockstar, but all of these 5 problems he listed could really be said about any game. He complains about the Mexico part of RDR, when in reality it wasn't a bad part of the game, it just didn't compare to the quality of the rest of the game. There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the Mexico section.

 

He gives his opinion without actually go into depth. "Let me explain why GTA wasn't fun... It just didn't compare to previous GTA's... it wasn't fun!" isn't a clear or concise opinion.

 

Edit: LA Noire wasn't even developed by Rockstar ffs.

[Fireman]

About unlikeable characters, Niko was the shallowest of all in all of the GTA's.

 

I sincerely think Claude Speed was even more interesting than Niko. Then again I didn't care for GTA IV at all (mainly because of the stuff described by the video).

 

However I wouldn't say one bad games out of 4 GTA's (not counting London or any of the portable ones) means Rockstar is failing though.

 

And Cole Phelps not being a good character? Eeh, play it again.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Fireman

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

He complains about the Mexico part of RDR, when in reality it wasn't a bad part of the game, it just didn't compare to the quality of the rest of the game. There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the Mexico section.

.

 

I actually found the Mexico part most exciting mission wise, but rather bland and drawn out story-wise. It was much funner than previous missions.

 

 

I feel West Elizabeth felt kinda.. ignored I guess. Though had some of my favorites scenery's from tall trees.. I remember seeing an image of Manzanita Post before release and was really stoked because by the looks of it I thought it was a well sized town in the middle of the Rockies type place, surrounded by massive mountains everywhere, then you get to it and it's like two buildings on a hillside.

 

Not to mention there's absolutely nothing to do in West Elizabeth in multiplayer. No gang hideouts, no pvp maps there.. I do suppose they did have the bear and mountain lion spawn locations but they could've atleast put a gang at Dutch's hideout or something that had a challenge to it.

 

I really hope RDR 2 really taps into the foresty/ mountainous regions, I liked the vast open desert feeling but the tall trees and high point of view over the map were really something else.

[TheGodDamnMaster]

 

I must be one of the only original fans that thinks R* current gen games destroy their last gen counterparts.

No, you are not my friend.

Good to see I'm not alone.

The story-telling by R* this gen is leaps and bounds beyond what it was during their PS2-era run.

 

Laugh at me all you want, but I think Dan Houser is one of the most talented writers of our age. He creates believable characters, whose' motivations you can understand and sympathize with.

 

This video also further disgusts me by reminding me of the masses that praise San Andreas as the second-coming of Christ. It was a good game, but it needed more polish. I felt the story lacked a clear direction.

Edited February 2, 2013 by whatsstrength

[Secura]

I kind of went out on rage on this guy. Then again his points are incredibly stupid ...

 

First off, since when did IV had an unlikable main character, Niko was by far the most developed protagonist with the most interesting backstory and the game wouldn't have been half of what it is without him. You fail to mention that every single Grand Theft Auto game previous to IV also had the character running around and doing jobs for people, at least in Niko's story it was justified by the fact that he technically needed money to fund his cousin's gambling problems.

 

Oh and if you wanted bland look no further Claude Speed, Carl Johnson or Victor Vance. Now, please tell me in what way Niko was an "annoying dick" as you so eloquently put it, he seemed to me like a guy who's had a hard life and tries to make the best out of the situation that he's in. Lastly the only reason you gave when you described why you like John Marston can easily be applied to Niko as really he's a tough guy around many but he'll do literally anything for his family.

 

Now, onto your comment about fun and the lack of it general in IV. You do realise that fun is a subjective term which means that some people may find having a helicopter fight with a N.O.O.S.E team while circling the Rotterdamn Tower may be more appealing then giving CJ a pink afro. Once again though, I'm not saying that if you find juvenile humour like that fun there's anything wrong with you, I'm simply stating that fun is subjective and it's not a good reason for why Rockstar's games (at least in your opinion) have been declining in quality.

 

Now, I believe that Max Payne 3 actually did do a fantastic job of recreating that dark slick feeling that MP1 and and MP2 had, just because it's gritty doesn't mean sh*t. If anything it adds to the overall atmosphere of the game and that's NOT a bad thing. At the moment all you seem to be doing is spewing opinions rather than facts, I'm going to hope that the next number in your list has a good point.

 

Oh and on a short side note, the guy from L.A Noire was known as Cole Phelps and L.A Noire wasn't even developed by Rockstar, only published by them, the company who made L.A Noire was known as Team Bondi, run by a man called Brendan McNamara and the company went defunct soon after L.A Noire's release.

 

Did you read up on any of this are you just being intentional moronic ?.

 

Now, let's sit down and talk about why fun is a subjective term and not something that's exclusive to anything or anyone. There are several billion people on are planet and nearly every single one of them thinks differently and has different opinions on things, therefore the point that you keep bringing up, fun really has no place and is factually out of place in this list. So, you seem to think that the Bank Robbery in IV was a bad mission, far from it. Nearly everyone in the Rockstar fan base and outside it recognises that mission for being the best in the WHOLE DAMN GAME.

 

Once again your opinions aren't fact.

 

Oh boy, here's a good one for number two, let's bring out the realism argument again. Games that let you pull a rocket launcher out your anus and then gun down half of the city's police force in a funfair are hardly realistic. Rockstar aim, and they always have aimed for a feeling of authenticity, not this bullsh*t you people keep spouting about realism. You can't have massive gun fights in helicopters above the NY skyline in reality, neither can you drive sports cars in a high speed chase down a subway while being chased by the FBI now can you ? No. Please lad, try a little harder as you've obviously not put a single second of rational thought into anything that you've said here.

 

Let's see if you can redeem yourself here with your last point.

 

Oh look FUN. I've talked enough about this, you're stupid and pathetic, and to be honest so are your points, we're done here goodbye.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Lightning Strike

[mrpain]

I honestly have no idea what's the actual definition of fun is anymore. I hate how people keep telling me what having fun is like. If I play a game and I enjoyed it, that's it. Don't tell me what I should be finding out what is fun and what is not fun. Some gamers out there tend to be the biggest annoying dicks in society nowadays.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

I honestly have no idea what's the actual definition of fun is anymore. I hate how people keep telling me what having fun is like. If I play a game and I enjoyed it, that's it. Don't tell me what I should be finding out what is fun and what is not fun. Some gamers out there tend to be the biggest annoying dicks in society nowadays.

This. It's as simple as that really. If you play it and enjoy it's "fun". If not then it isn't. As Lightning Strike put it some people may find going on a shootout in GTA IV more appealing than giving CJ a haircut or something and it applies in reverse.

 

I don't like being told what fun is. What's fun to someone may not apply to me. Why do I still play GTA IV to this day? It's "fun" to me that's why.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Miamivicecity

[AceRay]

He said that RDR was good, so all is forgiven as far as I'm concerned.

[Mister Pink]

Well if everyone who's wants to blindly defend IV's shortcomings, ill step in and give a little on fun. (btw, I love IV. Playing Episodes again today)

 

Fun in San Andreas for me realizing that because I was practicing out and about with my silenced pistol, shooting skill had gone up. Now, when I'm in more difficulty, I know I'll be more accurate from a distance. Fun was when I could discovered the basketball game worked. Fun was when I discovered pool was a game. Fun was when I acquired gold licenses (with great difficulty) but got really nice rewards such as a plane and a hotrod that appears parked outside the driving school. Fun was the ability to start and spread fires. Fun was being able to personalize my car and add nitro, paint jobs and new wheels etc. Fun was knowing that when I take this bitch out on one more date, I know I'm going to get that cool police uniform/monster truck/ability to keep weapons when I end up in hospital. Fun was flying a plane. Fun was diverse landscape including a mountain, a huge quarry, desert and countryside. Fun was gambling all my money and borrowing from the Yakuza/Mafia. Fun was winning $119,000,000 in a casino. Fun was stealth kills. Fun was my protagonist having pedestrians react to him based on his appearance and wealth/power. Fun was personalizing my character a bit to suit me. Fun was doing pimping missions in a pimp suit for the sheer balls of game doing that. Fun was buying that house that was staring at you all this time but you couldn't afford it and now you can stick one extra car in the garage and save different kind of modded car you like. Fun was swimming and seeing how long I could swim underwater. Fun was throwing up tags and knowing I was pissing off those ballas but when I was done, I'd have a permanent stash of weapons to chose from at my Grove St house. Fun was being a bum and the overcoming my situation and making lots of cash and acquiring business and power.

 

Fun is subjective. But don't sell one type of fun as fun then move the goal posts and expect people just to exchange one type of fun for something completely different. The difference between III-era and now is that we all seemed to be on the same fun buzz and same page. Now people are divided. Why? Because they changed the rules of fun. Now, when a game like pool was just a little bonus mini game within the game becomes a main attraction (IV) that's when I worry.

 

When people mean fun, I think people mean having a diverse, rewarding and somewhat personable/customizable game for people to feel like they are apart and to participate.

 

I always made my character look realistic in San Andreas. He always wore clothes appropriate to the part on the map he was at the time. But it's the choice that counts. Now you or me can see some idiot play with a pink Afro and that would spoil my game but its the choice that matters.

 

The fun things I mentioned are just features and stuff to do outside the story.

 

It's about making a game that you can creat your own fun outside of the story. The map and all the fun features should not be dictated by the story.

 

 

GTA should made on two levels in tandem:

 

1. The storyline GTA

2. Free roam fun GTA.

 

Everything that's in free-roam doesn't have to clash the story and vice versa.

 

What Rockstar are trying to do (and failing at) is trying to make the world outside of the story to match that of the characters worlds along it more realistic and cutting out potential fun. For example: you can't get this type of clothing "so and so" wouldn't wear that. Automatic fail. You are just after cutting out some potential fun someone was going to have wearing that item of clothing outside the story/roleplaying or rampaging. I'm using that as an example for the whole machine.

 

V is a decider for me. It looks like ill have fun anyway due to the fact I can fly a plane again. Or I wouldn't be looking at the same monotone grey scenery over and over. Variety is the spice of life.

Edited February 3, 2013 by ThePinkFloydSound

[VitoJoe]

Then again I didn't care for GTA IV at all (mainly because of the stuff described by the video).

Nope, you just hate it because it wasn't that well optimized for PC and you are a PC fanboy, just like every "consolized" game you bash for that sole reason. Troll harder next time.

[Fireman]

Then again I didn't care for GTA IV at all (mainly because of the stuff described by the video).

Nope, you just hate it because it wasn't that well optimized for PC and you are a PC fanboy, just like every "consolized" game you bash for that sole reason. Troll harder next time.

Yeah I'm such a PC fanboy I use my PS2, SNES and Xbox360 daily.