Rockstar prefers quality over quantity : Othor Games

» Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:44 am

I happened to truly enjoy the grit and grime of GTAIV.

Pretty much this.

How widespread was the difficulty with running GTA IV on launch? Only reason I ask is I guess I was lucky and it ran spot on for me...

» Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:42 pm

If some other studio made an open world western game and their greatest accomplishment was shooting wildlife and picking flowers they would be horrifically laughed off. Rockstar gets way too much leeway, I want to see one of their games critically and commercially flop just to knock some sense into them. Try find the old Rockstar, the one who knew how to laugh. The fun side.

» Sat Jun 30, 2012 9:55 pm

You really rate LA Noire more than Vice City, San Andreas and IV? Noire has gorgeous environments but it's painfully shallow and dull.

Protip: Yours isn't the only opinion that matters.

» Sat Jun 30, 2012 9:22 pm

If some other studio made an open world western game and their greatest accomplishment was shooting wildlife and picking flowers they would be horrifically laughed off. Rockstar gets way too much leeway, I want to see one of their games critically and commercially flop just to knock some sense into them. Try find the old Rockstar, the one who knew how to laugh. The fun side.

You just seem like you hate the game for no good reason to be quite honest. Though I am probably biased.

EDIT: Haha, a certain term was just translated into "really devoted fan".

» Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:12 am

For me, the transition from slapstick to mature games in the GTA series came at the best time, considering it happened as I was growing up myself.

Me personally, I've loved every GTA, and even RDR. Wasn't a huge fan of LA Noire though. Environment was cool, but I hated the characters, story, and lack of ability to screw around.

» Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:25 am

I like the quality over quantity philosophy Rockstar has going on, so bonus points to them. The only thing that ticks me off about them is that - as far as I'm aware - nearly all of their games have PC ports (and they're not all horrible) but they didn't bother to port RDR over to the PC, which is the ONE game I had really hoped to see on that platform. I have it for the 360, and love it to death, I can loose hours and hours in that game, but I do so hate playing with a controller. Their reason was that it was not viable (technically, developmentally and/or business-wise), which, considering RDR sold pretty well, game of the year and everything, is to me is absolute... yeah, bad word here. And I can't imagine it would be any harder for PCs to run than LA Noire is.

And I'd rather have a crappy port than no port at all.

» Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:21 pm

I prefer a few years apart between releases. That way I feel I can enjoy the game and appreciate the work behind it more throughly.

About GTAIV. The game is good, but it's repetitive and cover based shooting is boring. Had to force myself trough the last missions. I had no problem with the more serious tone of the game. I think GTA is a series that can swing both ways if it want's too. That said both The Lost and The Damned and Ballad of Gay Tony was great because both was a good mixture of silly and serious.

» Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:19 pm

That line and the strip club line forever haunt my mind. I hope for no more 'friend' interactions.

It's just an optional feature, I don't get why people have such a problem with it. You get a small benefit if you get their friendship over 75% and there's no consequence for just ignoring them.

» Sat Jun 30, 2012 4:03 pm

How widespread was the difficulty with running GTA IV on launch? Only reason I ask is I guess I was lucky and it ran spot on for me...

I bought it on sale last year but it was still tedious. I must have taken like ten hours over two days installing and wading through the ridiculous copy protection and various problems before I could even play the game. Then the game was stuttering while I had to go bowling with Roman, which was just the last straw. After all that hassle I simply didn't have the patience to go through the learning curve. There's a whole lot of hyperbole in DRM hate, but I'll say that just getting GTA4 to run sapped most of the reserve of goodwill I had for GTA4 from Vice City and San Andreas. I will definitely think twice before buying another Rockstar release again.

I'll probably get back to it in a few years but until then I'm pretending that San Andreas was the last GTA game.

» Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:38 pm

Protip: Yours isn't the only opinion that matters.

[censored] off. It's quite obvious that the post is my opinion, not fact, and I was asking a valid question about his game preference :rolleyes:

» Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:52 am

but most of the base game's missions were all dark and grim.

Seems to me that GTA in general is dark and grim. I would disagree that these themes apply only to GTA IV. Maybe it was just presented with more levity in past games but every GTA story is one about killing, stealing, and revenge in all various forms.

As to the original topic, quality without quantity gets dull (you can only look at the same beautiful [censored] for so long before it becomes blase). It'd be a cop-out for me to say that I want a balance of both though, so I would prefer quality, but only by a slight margin.

» Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:02 am

GTA1 and especially 2 were goofy as hell. GTA3 was also largely satire and the two spinoffs still ran with it to a lesser extent. GTA4 was the real turning point.

» Sun Jul 01, 2012 3:06 am

I'm playing Vice City right now, after nearly beating GTA III last week. GTA IV was different in the way it presented itself (more dark and serious), although it's still a good game. I'd prefer GTA IV's gameplay mechanics with the light hearted approach of Vice City/San Andreas.

But yeah, Rockstar are a great game dev company. One of the very very very few companies which I am always excited about their games, and they always deliver.

» Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:13 pm

It's just an optional feature, I don't get why people have such a problem with it. You get a small benefit if you get their friendship over 75% and there's no consequence for just ignoring them.

That's not true. If you outright turn them down or not hang out with them, your reputation with them decreases. I found a workaround by agreeing to hang out, but then calling back and being unable to hang out.

» Sat Jun 30, 2012 1:57 pm

A publisher that gets it, nice. :goodjob:

» Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:11 am

[censored] off. It's quite obvious that the post is my opinion, not fact, and I was asking a valid question about his game preference :rolleyes:

While peppering a loaded question with personal bias. Good form.

» Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:26 am

Agreed fully, and I'm glad Bethesda adopt this approach as well.

Annual releases completely ruin franchises for me.

» Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:33 am

While peppering a loaded question with personal bias. Good form.

Personal bias on a gaming forum? Stop the presses!

» Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:55 am

That's not true. If you outright turn them down or not hang out with them, your reputation with them decreases. I found a workaround by agreeing to hang out, but then calling back and being unable to hang out.

I mean you don't lose anything beside the already optional benefit. If you hang out with them you can call them for a task like weapons or taxi, but if you ignore them you don't lose anything, you just don't get that extra help.

The things they offer you are so small anyway, it's not like it would make the game any more difficult to just hang up on them every time.

» Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:19 am

I'm a bit split.

I'm usually critical of "once-a-years" such as CoD, but Assassin's Creed has impressed me in that regard.

» Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:55 pm

I find the Assassins Creed games rather good, no respect for games like CoD though.

But I think I agree, I've liked all the installments of GTA I've played. Even IV, though I think I get why some doesn't like it.
I hope V is as good as I hope.

I think AC II was great. The first one was awfull. Then they started milking the franchise

» Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:08 pm

I don't like Rockstar, don't like their games either. The last one I enjoyed was GTA San Andreas. Their absolute worse has to be Either GTA 4, or Red Dead Redemption. They chose to go from entertaining kind of funny comedic stories to... that. Some of the most overused and generic stories often featured in books and films. The gameplay was not enough to save those games after the characters all got boring. Then they look at me with a straight face and expect me to care for these so overused and one dimensional characters.... ha. I don't think so. GTA 4 was dipped in molasses or something, playing the game felt slow. Like they don't know how a human body moves or works. I just got fed up trying to control what felt like a bloated whale. The slow down effect made everything in the game seem twice as boring. The whole reason why the free roam aspect is so fun in the older titles is they're fast. This is slow, and boring. There just didn't seem to be as much to see or do other than generic bad simulator 1.0.

Red Dead Redemption is guilty of all the same problems. The stuff in that game were again slow and boring. Nothing interesting to see or do. Again they somehow managed to get everything to feel like it got dipped in molasses. It was a slow game, with a generic slow plot that could easily have been wrapped up. But it grabs you by the temples and forcibly drags you through the mediocre dregs.

More and more I get the impression Rockstar wants to make movies and not games. That's good for them, but what makes a good movie doesn't make a good game for me. I have written them off. I will never ever play any of their stuff again. I just can't stand it, it all feels too much like some horrifically evil combination of a bad movie + bad simulator + tons of brown molasses to slow everything down and give it that brown veneer so many games love.

Edit
Don't even get me started on their absolute piss poor PC ports.

Nothing good to see or do in RDR? What?

» Sat Jun 30, 2012 4:31 pm

I'm usually critical of "once-a-years" such as CoD, but Assassin's Creed has impressed me in that regard.

I think had they released Revelations and Brotherhood as ACII DLC, and released ACIII on a normal timeframe as the next game, the franchise would be a lot more fondly remembered.

» Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:53 pm

Nothing good to see or do in RDR? What?

Dur pick flowers and sell. Dur shoot animals and sell. Dur play games and make some money. Money which is useless. Dur dur durrrrr. Then the slow tediousness of all of it is just insane. I couldn't take it, way too much of a simulation for my taste. They forgot to add the fun.

Edit
It doesn't help it looks like assssss, even for a console game. I had to sit so close to the TV to make any of the jagged blurry looking pixels out. Not good. Not good at all. So far it's the worst console graphics I've come across, and I hope never to see worse. I realize there is only so much power, but god. Just cut down the map size by like... I dunno 10-15% and give us some sort of anti aliasing. If that's even possible.

» Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:44 pm

Dur pick flowers and sell. Dur shoot animals and sell. Dur play games and make some money. Money which is useless. Dur dur durrrrr. Then the slow tediousness of all of it is just insane. I couldn't take it, way too much of a simulation for my taste. They forgot to add the fun.

Money isn't useless. The game was really fun, expecially online. Online is where the game really was brought to life.