I feel rockstars new games are feeling restrictive compared to the old

[LorshZontek]

I just feel like rockstar just added more restrictions to their new gta games, am i the only one that feels this way 

[Emmi]

The HD-era games certainly offer less ways to interact with the world than the 3D-era games. There isn't really much to do outside of the main story and that's a real shame!

[éX-Driver]

Rockstar, particularly post-2006, has seen themselves more as a film studio than a game studio. They want to make films, but got into the game business instead. They’re more and more making their games to look and feel like some blockbuster movie. The problem is, for their stories to work the way they want them to they have to railroad players to some extent to make sure everything works the way they envisioned. The more they devote to the plot, the less freedom they can afford players. 

[Rafae S]

On 3/3/2019 at 6:43 AM, éX-Driver said:

Rockstar, particularly post-2006, has seen themselves more as a film studio than a game studio. They want to make films, but got into the game business instead. They’re more and more making their games to look and feel like some blockbuster movie. The problem is, for their stories to work the way they want them to they have to railroad players to some extent to make sure everything works the way they envisioned. The more they devote to the plot, the less freedom they can afford players. 

 

This so much.

[Journey_95]

 

On 3/3/2019 at 12:43 PM, éX-Driver said:

Rockstar, particularly post-2006, has seen themselves more as a film studio than a game studio. They want to make films, but got into the game business instead. They’re more and more making their games to look and feel like some blockbuster movie. The problem is, for their stories to work the way they want them to they have to railroad players to some extent to make sure everything works the way they envisioned. The more they devote to the plot, the less freedom they can afford players. 

Freedom is overrated in games. While I wouldn't mind mind more options and less linear style I don't see how the "do whatever you want" formula from Ubisoft & other developers is any good. It makes every mission generic and feels lazy as hell, nothing memorable there.

 

And I love the Hollywood blockbuster feeling from Rockstar games, them caring about the plot leads to good storylines unlike most games out there

Edited June 2, 2019 by Journey_95

[MVP]

RDR2 is not restrictive at all. I'd say it's the first Rockstar game in a long time that feels the most un-restrictive because of the level of detail.

 

I'd say we've got a lot to look forward to, whatever Rockstar's next masterpiece will be. Freedom has always and will always be an option in Rockstar's open world games.

[jje1000]

I remember last that GTAIV/V(?) seemed to have more freedom in the way missions could be carried out. 

 

I think this is a problem that's only really started appearing with RDRII with its highly-controlled mission environments. In some missions, you are guided throughout the levels in a Max-Payney manner, and have to carry out the missions a certain way or else the game throws you a 'Mission Failed' screen- this creates a tension between the open world and what essentially is a corridor shooter. A lot of that open world detail is ultimately redundant because it never really has an impact on the way missions play out, IMO.

 

I would say that a mixture of the two would work well- maybe some missions could emphasize the highly scripted blockbuster; other missions could task you with a goal within the mission arena and leave you to your devices; some overworld missions could give you goals to do, but without any sort of order in which they need to be completed and are highly dependent on your equipment/stats; and finally maybe some missions combine elements of all three.

 

Edited June 7, 2019 by jje1000

[Zello]

I just miss being able to buy safehouses in singleplayer.

[universetwisters]

Relevant

 

 

[LorshZontek]

1 hour ago, Zello said:

I just miss being able to buy safehouses in singleplayer.

same 

[LeslieFromTheShoIntimacy]

On 6/2/2019 at 12:34 AM, Journey_95 said:

 

Freedom is overrated in games. While I wouldn't mind mind more options and less linear style I don't see how the "do whatever you want" formula from Ubisoft & other developers is any good. It makes every mission generic and feels lazy as hell, nothing memorable there.

 

And I love the Hollywood blockbuster feeling from Rockstar games, them caring about the plot leads to good storylines unlike most games out there

It doesn’t have to be “do whatever you want” always at all times; it can be linear story and objectives with multiple methods of attack available and various ways the scenario could go, and possibly a few different outcomes. 

 

Also, I don’t think it’s fair to compare a joke like Ubisoft to R*. Yeah, maybe both are game developers but that’s where the similarities end.  As they say, “apples to oranges”.  Ubisoft never strives to be the best and surely never puts out a product anywhere as good as the likes of GTA, RDR, etc.

 

& finally, I do agree that R* makes games more cinematic because that’s their vision, but frankly, games that play like movies suck to me.  If I wanted to play a “game” that mainly consists of interactive cutscenes, then I would watch a movie.  You actually think that the Hollywood theme behind R* games is making their plots and stories better?  Because, certainly, GTA V was their most cinematic, Hollywood-type GTA to date; yet the story, characters, and writing sucked major.  I should add that I wouldn’t mind the cinematic approach, if they made it feel less restricted.

 

I agree with OP.

[Jabalous]

It's clear that R* does not talk about or market their missions design as open-ended. They're more into a linear mission design that serves the presentation of the story and the open world in order to make them believable and consistent. It's what they do the best and I'd instead play another game, such as Hitman, if I want various ways to finish a task. Unless they highlight a future game for its open missions structure, do not expect this to change. R*'s games are definitely not what to play for options and puzzles when it comes to missions and so they should be taken for what they're. 

[Mas u Sees]

On 6/7/2019 at 5:36 AM, jje1000 said:

I remember last that GTAIV/V(?) seemed to have more freedom in the way missions could be carried out. 

 

I think this is a problem that's only really started appearing with RDRII with its highly-controlled mission environments. In some missions, you are guided throughout the levels in a Max-Payney manner, and have to carry out the missions a certain way or else the game throws you a 'Mission Failed' screen- this creates a tension between the open world and what essentially is a corridor shooter. A lot of that open world detail is ultimately redundant because it never really has an impact on the way missions play out, IMO.

 

I would say that a mixture of the two would work well- maybe some missions could emphasize the highly scripted blockbuster; other missions could task you with a goal within the mission arena and leave you to your devices; some overworld missions could give you goals to do, but without any sort of order in which they need to be completed and are highly dependent on your equipment/stats; and finally maybe some missions combine elements of all three.

 

But RDRII does exactly that lol.

You have some missions which are heavily scripted Story pieces to bring the plot forward, and some missions in which you can choose your own approach.

For example when attacking gang hideouts, or robbing that house etc. 

[jje1000]

On 6/15/2019 at 7:21 PM, Mas u Sees said:

But RDRII does exactly that lol.

You have some missions which are heavily scripted Story pieces to bring the plot forward, and some missions in which you can choose your own approach.

For example when attacking gang hideouts, or robbing that house etc. 

I know that, but they're still outnumbered by linear missions, and I was referring mainly to missions that push the story forward. 

 

It it would be nice if some of the missions like the attack on the oil factory, the attack on Annesburg, finding Javier on Guarma and other side missions like the bounties were less linear. Some of those could have done well as arenas where the player is given an objective (I.e. find the bond, find hints about the location of Javier), and is let loose without overt directions.

 

Edited June 16, 2019 by jje1000

[Algonquin Assassin]

I don't think any of R*'s games are really the pinnacle of ultimate "freedom". The most we've got even in the 3D era regarding missions was minor A or B decisions, but really no matter what we did the outcome would always be the same. The thing is we can still do that in the newer games, but they're a lot more sophisticated now with better cutscenes and cinematics in general.

 

During my two playthroughs of RDR2 it never crossed my mind "Geez I wish I could do X instead of Y" because the cinematic experience drove the game forward and it's not the type of game where I except to be able to do a mission in multiple ways.

 

 

[Jabalous]

17 hours ago, SonOfLiberty said:

I don't think any of R*'s games are really the pinnacle of ultimate "freedom". The most we've got even in the 3D era regarding missions was minor A or B decisions, but really no matter what we did the outcome would always be the same. The thing is we can still do that in the newer games, but they're a lot more sophisticated now with better cutscenes and cinematics in general.

 

During my two playthroughs of RDR2 it never crossed my mind "Geez I wish I could do X instead of Y" because the cinematic experience drove the game forward and it's not the type of game where I except to be able to do a mission in multiple ways.

 

 

Exactly, and I think that one aspect has to be sacrificed for the other, which means that the more freedom there is, the less cinematic, believable and story-driven the missions will be. You won't get complete freedom and high-standard, coherent cutscenes in the same game. R* doesn't even advertise or market their games as having multiple, non-scripted ways to complete missions, and the game being open-world does not imply that it should be. I personally do not play R*'s games for puzzles and non-scripted mission design, but instead I do so for the exploration, story, presentation and atmosphere, all of which are more emphasized in the marketing than anything else. Yet, the game still offers options and some unscripted ways to progress through and finish a select of missions, but again, this is not Hitman and Arthur is not Agent 47. Finally, R* is actually aware of this 'criticism' and they have an opinion about it. Read what Rob Nelson says as quoted below.

 

Quote

 

GamesBeat: I really liked this game. I played all 105 missions. I had a colleague who felt like he wanted it to be more like Hitman 2, where you can go and do anything, tackle your target through many kinds of means. It seems to me that approach is not what you wanted to do or tried to do. Do you have a view on how you balanced this sort of directed story versus the openness of the world and the missions?

 

Nelson: I think all of us feel like we want to approach any situation, anything, in any way we want and have it be credible. But that’s a big, big challenge. To do that and have it feel — it’s a big world and a big story, and I think it needed to be a big world and a big story for what we set out to do. But yes, we explored a lot of different avenues early in development, like more procedural approaches to things. Hey, it’d be great if this camp could totally grow and you could hire people from towns and come back and add to your camp. We explored, at one point, if you could take anybody fishing that you wanted at any time.

 

But what that ended up doing was a very procedural-feeling game. You’d write a bit of dialogue, beta a bit of dialogue, and go and make these AI-type behaviors. It didn’t feel like you’re on a thing with Pearson and Bill, or you’re on a thing with Javier and John. It felt like you were on a thing with AI that just looked like those people, but they didn’t behave like those people.

 

Unfortunately there’s no procedural system yet that we’re happy enough with to make the worlds we make. Our worlds are handmade. Our artists will use certain procedural tools, but they’re all curated by the artists. It’s the same for the content we make. For it to make you feel anything, it has to be made by humans. It has to be written and designs and shot and acted and processed and put into place very carefully. For things that happen in the world, we have to very selectively know when they’re going to happen.

 

It would be great if this was all open, but people have to make this stuff happen at some point. It has to be scripted so that it all feels right. I don’t think there are procedural tools that will make it feel real.

 

 

Edited July 15, 2019 by Jabalous

[Shauny7488]

Less freedom or less side activities to do? There isnt much to do aside from missions in gta 5