Support NeoGAF

[Victor Omega]

6 billion dollars in 10 years. That's how much money Grand Theft Auto V has Generated since releasing in 2013 with almost only a 300 million budget.

They release for console, released the PC a year later, definitive edition at the end of each generation and a remaster for the following generation.

People say Nintendo could live off of Pokemon alone. The entire gaming industry as a whole could live off of GTA. I digress.



But when it comes to pushing gaming forward...or the BARE minimum... pushing graphically fidelity to new heights or procedural story scripting (not even asking for Ai here), We tend to bate an eye to Rockstar for... Another 10 years of doing the least.

Meanwhile studios Like Bethesda had the weight of Microsofts and Xbox and Activision for Starfield to be successful in the hope it will last another 5 years.

We actually expected CDPR to take on a games like Cyberpunk 2077 and not only released in a polish state but had the audacity to believe it would be graphical benchmark of all games moving forward. (and I see the irony because I've entertained all of these discussions.)

We have gamers believing Wolverine will come out "soon" not realizing both Insomnac Games and Naughty Dog has been practically pushing out a games ever generation.


So if anyone should hav the pressure of "gaming God's" wether you don't care for GTA....or a Red dead Stan, Rockstar should been getting just as much pressure from us.

Expectations for GTA 6 should be justifiably and critically...HIGH.. 6 billion dollars high.

Let's go

 

[MidGenRefresh]

I don't see how these companies are pushing gaming forward.

Rockstar has been making GTA IV for the last 15 years.
Naughty Dog has been making Uncharted or zombie reskin for the last 16 years.
Bethesda has been making Oblivion reskins for the last 17 years.

 

[StueyDuck]

I don't even know what you are talking about?

We must pressure them to release soon but also push tech but to take their time but to be polished unlike cyberpunk and the something about wolverine and starfield

This is just word salad.

Basically you want us to heavily criticize and put the pressure on them for literally everything and anything because reasons?

 

[SJRB]

According to who, lol? What are you even saying?

 

[Jakk]

Honestly, I don't even know what are you trying to say. I think you have to be blind if you don't see the technical advancements when comparing GTA V to RDR II. That being said, I don't expect there will be as significant jump from RDR II to GTA VI, we have simply hit diminishing returns. There will never again be such a jump in visual fidelity as there was when going from PS2 to PS3 or PS3 to PS4 generation.

 

[Skelterz]

Rockstar are maybe the best western devs in the industry this thread is a joke, someone cut him off.

 

[GermanZepp]

Good one pal..

 

[March Climber]

Red Dead Redemption 2 was a push forward. Right now they simply need to push forward in terms of mission design because their world design is currently disconnected from their story missions and it is annoyingly jarring of an experience.

 

[lh032]

tbh, i rather game companies pushing gaming AI tech further, like...an actual good AI npc or companion in a single player game.
I guess with online multiplayer no companies would want to waste time doing this.

 

[MMaRsu]

Red Dead Redemption 2 was a push forward. Right now they simply need to push forward in terms of mission design because their world design is currently disconnected from their story missions and it is annoyingly jarring of an experience.

Not really, this is just what they want to create.

They don't want to create a sandbox mission structure, where you can do anything and it can result in varying states of mission failure or success.

They want to create a cinematic experience, with set missions that play out how they directed it.
The open world is just a backdrop for their missions at this point.

Which is why I don't understand the criticism, like people (or snakeyjakey or whoever that fuck on the ball is) give that their mission design is outdated.

Outdated compared to which other open world game exactly? It's not an RPG with multiple mission outcomes. And it will never be.

 

[SimTourist]

 

[Carmen Winstead]

Blud's talking like RDR2 did not push graphical boundaries and is still not the best looking open world game to date despite coming out 5 years ago.

 

[MAX PAYMENT]

I don't see how these companies are pushing gaming forward.

Rockstar has been making GTA IV for the last 15 years.
Naughty Dog has been making Uncharted or zombie reskin for the last 16 years.
Bethesda has been making Oblivion reskins for the last 17 years.

Nailed it

 

[March Climber]

Not really, this is just what they want to create.

They don't want to create a sandbox mission structure, where you can do anything and it can result in varying states of mission failure or success.

They want to create a cinematic experience, with set missions that play out how they directed it.
The open world is just a backdrop for their missions at this point.

Which is why I don't understand the criticism, like people (or snakeyjakey or whoever that fuck on the ball is) give that their mission design is outdated.

Outdated compared to which other open world game exactly? It's not an RPG with multiple mission outcomes. And it will never be.

I've repeated this in a past thread but I'm not asking for a sandbox/RPG mission structure, I'm asking for baby steps. I'm asking for a non-mission failure if something random from the game's world leaks into a mission and makes me slightly veer off path. Surely they should account for the game doing it's own thing when structuring missions around this type of world right? Instead of forcing a mission failure and reset for a slight 'unaccounted for' variation.

Rockstar doesn't need a defense force for these types of things. They know exactly what the problem is and they're simply being so stubbornly rigid about it that it just seems detrimental. In this regard, OP makes a valid point. Graphically I don't know what he expects though, they've always pushed the envelope.

 

[MMaRsu]

I've repeated this in a past thread but I'm not asking for a sandbox/RPG mission structure, I'm asking for baby steps. I'm asking for a non-mission failure if something random from the game's world leaks into a mission and makes me slightly veer off path. Surely they should account for the game doing it's own thing when structuring missions around this type of world right? Instead of forcing a mission failure and reset for a slight 'unaccounted for' variation.

Rockstar doesn't need a defense force for these types of things. They know exactly what the problem is and they're simply being so stubbornly rigid about it that it just seems detrimental. In this regard, OP makes a valid point. Graphically I don't know what he expects though, they've always pushed the envelope.

I understand what you are saying and while I might agree, I am not being a defense force. This is just the way they have directed their games since GTA3, although that offers more freedom. A game like RDR1 even took that up another notch.

If that is what they want to do, let them do it. Their missions are still fun to me, I don't need some new type of mission structure perse to have fun in RDR2 or GTA 6.

There are still 0 other open world games on the scope of a GTA, or Red Dead Redemption. So I can't really say oh well this game does that why cant GTA do that? Because no games do what GTA do.

 

[Krappadizzle]

Rockstar's Response:

 

[JohnnyPhats]

That’s what happens when you have GTA. Most people just want a well written, great looking GTA. Don’t exactly need to reinvent the wheel here to literally print billions of dollars every year from it.

 

[R6Rider]

 

[Hudo]

It seems really crazy to me that the whole of Take Two Interactive is hard carried by GTA. If I were Strauss Zelnick, I would shit my pants 24/7.

 

[mansoor1980]

 

[HL3.exe]

Wait, they absolutely get scrutinized.



And I fully agree: Their -go to Letter on the map, get cutscene, do linear mission- structure has been criticized since GTA IV.



All their innovation stem around visuals and simulation complexity, but not actually building a interesting gameplay structure around these coherent simulations.

I've always dreamed of Immersive Sim problem-solving within a Rockstar game, but they actually punish they player for experimenting with it's systems by throwing a fail-state at you.

 

[Myths]

Modding community kind of did it for them.

 

[NeoGiffer]

Let's go

 

[March Climber]

I understand what you are saying and while I might agree, I am not being a defense force. This is just the way they have directed their games since GTA3, although that offers more freedom. A game like RDR1 even took that up another notch.

If that is what they want to do, let them do it. Their missions are still fun to me, I don't need some new type of mission structure perse to have fun in RDR2 or GTA 6.

There are still 0 other open world games on the scope of a GTA, or Red Dead Redemption. So I can't really say oh well this game does that why cant GTA do that? Because no games do what GTA do.

Sorry, what I mean by defense force is when people come into the thread and say that Rockstar has no reason to improve or change for the better, simply because they're already at the top of the mountain. Saying 'this is simply how GTA is and you have to accept it' is implying that I want a huge structural change when I don't. I just want improvements on the mission-side of things so that they match the excellence of the world-side. Like you said, GTA 3 felt way more open compared to what came after it and this freedom slowly shrank more and more until it reached an annoying degree. Setpieces can still be setpieces even with scripted events happening and so many other games have proven this. I don't understand why Rockstar is exempt from it.

The best thing I can compare this to is if you're a fan of a number 1 selling music artist, and they're still perceived as number one after making a ton of albums. I'm the type of fan who sees the eventual fall from the mountain years from now and I am simply wanting the artist to try something new or something with a slight variation on their next album before it's too late, because eventually their music will become stale to the audience and they will fall from the mountaintop.

tl;dr I don't want Rockstar to eventually be perceived like how people see Bethesda today.

Edit:

Why? What open world game does it better?

This argument shouldn't matter. Simply waiting for someone else to do it better isn't the best way to go about staying as the best and being perceived as the best. This would be like Crysis games not having any more graphical leaps because Crysis 1 was the king and thus they don't need to.

 

[Phase]

This reads like a "games journalism" article, meant to shame people into giving more credit to companies that haven't made anything novel in decades.

 

[MMaRsu]

Wait, they absolutely get scrutinized.

And O fully agree: Their -go to Letter on the map, get cutscene, do linear mission- structure has been criticized since GTA IV.

Why? What open world game does it better?

It's easy to criticize, it's hard to make something thats feasable. A sandbox mission structure where you can do whatever doesn't make sense for a super directed game like GTA or RDR2.

Maybe for a Deus Ex game, sure. But GTA isn't Deus Ex and it never will be.

 

[MMaRsu]

tl;dr I don't want Rockstar to eventually be perceived like how people see Bethesda today.

I fully agree except for this, because the hate towards Bethesda isn't warranted at all.

They make the games they are good at, in the style that they want.

Sure it may not gell with everyone, but I had great fun with Starfield for instance and absolutely feel it's their best game after Skyrim.

It's easy for people to criticize, but harder to come up with something better. Ofcourse we aren't developers, but I feel a lot of the hate is unwarranted.
And the same goes for the mission structure in GTA & RDR2. NakeySnakey or that guy on the ball feels like he's so smart, criticizing a structure while not really having an idea why R* do the things that they do.

 

[March Climber]

I fully agree except for this, because the hate towards Bethesda isn't warranted at all.

Hate isn't warranted but criticism is. Bethesda has become complacent in a formula. Right now the opinion of Bethesda is shaky at best. I'd say they have at least 2-3 more games before the sales numbers start to dwindle a bit.

They make the games they are good at, in the style that they want.

Sure it may not gell with everyone, but I had great fun with Starfield for instance and absolutely feel it's their best game after Skyrim.

And others started to see the cracks on the floor and the seams in the walls. They are seeing the staleness of older design happen right before their eyes and a lot of people have stopped playing and have a ton of regret dumping hours into it.

It's easy for people to criticize, but harder to come up with something better. Of course we aren't developers, but I feel a lot of the hate is unwarranted.

We try to offer up ideas, but you and others have shot them down in threads like this one and the one before it. You can't have both. Either you want constructive criticism or you don't want us to criticize the game lol.

And the same goes for the mission structure in GTA & RDR2. NakeySnakey or that guy on the ball feels like he's so smart, criticizing a structure while not really having an idea why R* do the things that they do.

I keep seeing this name brought up but I don't know who NakeySnakey is and nor do I care. My opinion came from my own feelings on playing Rockstar video games. If it happened to match his and others, then surely this means there is actually a problem that needs to be addressed, no?

 

[TheRedRiders]

 

[MMaRsu]

Hate isn't warranted but criticism is. Bethesda has become complacent in a formula. Right now the opinion of Bethesda is shaky at best. I'd say they have at least 2-3 more games before the sales numbers start to dwindle a bit.

And others started to see the cracks on the floor and the seams in the walls. They are seeing the staleness of older design happen right before their eyes and a lot of people have stopped playing and have a ton of regret dumping hours into it.

We try to offer up ideas, but you and others have shot them down in threads like this one and the one before it. You can't have both. Either you want constructive criticism or you don't want us to criticize the game lol.


I keep seeing this name brought up but I don't know who NakeySnakey is and nor do I care. My opinion came from my own feelings on playing Rockstar video games. If it happened to match his and others, then surely this means there is actually a problem that needs to be addressed, no?

But like I said, and it counts for both Bethesda and Rockstar games, stale compared to what exactly? Their older games? Perhaps true, but Call of Duty and Fifa put out games each year and they are exactly the same in their formula.

Others have tried to ape both Bethesda and Rockstar games to varying success, if you look at Outer Worlds, and Sleeping Dogs, Saints Row and such they are all games who have tried their own take on those formulas and have had varying degrees of success.

Personally I don't feel like there is a better open world game out there, in the 10 years since GTA V released, nobody has even tried on that same level. You can say maybe Ubisoft with Watch Dogs2, but their games have a lot of issues, especially the driving physics and their own mission design is pretty shaky at best.

Same goes for Bethesda style games, since Fallout 4 there hasn't been one on that same level (and I dislike Fallout 4 a whole lot, the writing sucks, the characters suck, the story is complete ass). Outer Worlds tried it and I gave up on that halfway with no plans of returning. You can say Starfield has old design, and while that may be true, there are zero games that compare to them.

Now I am not saying both games and studios do not have their own issues, but they make the games they want to make and have the sales to back it up. I think GTA could vastly improve the story missions, add more ways of interacting with the story. Even in story missions you already have slight choices in GTA V. The heists can be taken on in various ways, which is good.

The failure states can be an annoying issue, but personally I play their games and missions how they ask me to play them. I generally follow the onscreen instructions and do not try to stray from them.

 

[Windom Earle]

I think there is a decent chance that GTA6 will suck. I don't trust current year Rockstar. This franchise has become too huge for its own good.

 

[proandrad]

Rockstar pushes gaming forward with interactivity, physics, gameplay, and story. Pushing gaming forward isn't just about making shiny surfaces look pretty.

 

[MMaRsu]

I think there is a decent chance that GTA6 will suck. I don't trust current year Rockstar. This franchise has become too huge for its own good.

yeah RDR2 really sucked

 

[Perrott]

Imagine having brain damage to the extent of trying to held Rockstar accountable, not only for "not pushing real-time visuals forward", but also trying to use a comparison video of PS3 and 360 game from 2013 being put up against an "enhanced visuals" PC mod as evidence to said point.

You're a fool. No one does these 300-600M dollar games (and by extent, everything that comes along with that insane budget) except for Rockstar. And maybe Star Citizen.

 

[March Climber]

But like I said, and it counts for both Bethesda and Rockstar games, stale compared to what exactly? Their older games? Perhaps true, but Call of Duty and Fifa put out games each year and they are exactly the same in their formula.

Using others like CoD and FIFA to justify this doesn't make it right lol. I'm comparing these companies to their own standards. I haven't brought up a single game as comparison because I know what road that argument leads down and I'd rather not bother. So I'm simply saying they're growing complacent at the top of their own mountains. It catches up to anyone who's at the top unless they act first and change things up a bit.

Others have tried to ape both Bethesda and Rockstar games to varying success, if you look at Outer Worlds, and Sleeping Dogs, Saints Row and such they are all games who have tried their own take on those formulas and have had varying degrees of success.

Again I'm not playing the comparison game. Rockstar and Bethesda have to improve on their own merits. You can throw tons of similar titles at me but it won't matter to my overall point.

Personally I don't feel like there is a better open world game out there, in the 10 years since GTA V released, nobody has even tried on that same level. You can say maybe Ubisoft with Watch Dogs2, but their games have a lot of issues, especially the driving physics and their own mission design is pretty shaky at best.

People have improved certain aspects of GTA design, but it's usually because they've focused solely on doing one or two game features better, instead of doing the whole package better. Maybe if they had Rockstar money, they could. Idk

Same goes for Bethesda style games, since Fallout 4 there hasn't been one on that same level (and I dislike Fallout 4 a whole lot, the writing sucks, the characters suck, the story is complete ass). Outer Worlds tried it and I gave up on that halfway with no plans of returning. You can say Starfield has old design, and while that may be true, there are zero games that compare to them.

Same argument as above, and again my point isn't to bring up other games. I'm saying from a Bethesda to Bethesda level, they are starting to stagnate. Since you brought up Ubisoft above, they're a good example. People roll their eyes in today's generation at new Assassin's Creed games. I don't want that to happen to Rockstar and Bethesda.

Now I am not saying both games and studios do not have their own issues, but they make the games they want to make and have the sales to back it up.

For now, yes.

I think GTA could vastly improve the story missions, add more ways of interacting with the story. Even in story missions you already have slight choices in GTA V. The heists can be taken on in various ways, which is good.

The failure states can be an annoying issue, but personally I play their games and missions how they ask me to play them. I generally follow the onscreen instructions and do not try to stray from them.

I agree and I also play their games that way too, and so does everyone else because we have to lol. I just want them to improve on what they already are good at, like most developers already do.

 

[Phase]

Rockstar pushes gaming forward with interactivity, physics, gameplay, and story. Pushing gaming forward isn't just about making shiny surfaces look pretty.

Could you provide examples of "pushing gaming forward" in the aforementioned categories within the last 15 years (post GTA4)?

 

[MMaRsu]

Same argument as above, and again my point isn't to bring up other games. I'm saying from a Bethesda to Bethesda level, they are starting to stagnate. Since you brought up Ubisoft above, they're a good example. People roll their eyes in today's generation at new Assassin's Creed games. I don't want that to happen to Rockstar and Bethesda.

Thats never going to happen because Ubisoft release a game like that every 2 years, and R* and Bethesda its once every 10 years

 

[March Climber]

Thats never going to happen because Ubisoft release a game like that every 2 years, and R* and Bethesda its once every 10 years

But people are currently starting to feel similarly towards Bethesda

 

[Loomy]

People always talk about Rockstar and GTAV - GTA6 while conveniently forgetting that RDR2 came out in between.

 

[MMaRsu]

But people are currently starting to feel similarly towards Bethesda

Thats because people let their expectations get to their heads, and some overhyped it to hell and back. Its a better game than their previous game in every way possible.

 

[March Climber]

Thats because people let their expectations get to their heads, and some overhyped it to hell and back. Its a better game than their previous game in every way possible.

No, it's not. It's better in some ways, worse in others, stagnant in many. As someone who's played the game it is a decent B- or C+ experience. But don't just listen to me, there have been plenty of level-headed reviews pointing out what's good and what's bad about it, with each one being after hundreds of hours of gameplay put into it at this point in time.

 

[MMaRsu]

No, it's not. It's better in some ways, worse in others, stagnant in many. As someone who's played the game it is a decent B- or C+ experience. But don't just listen to me, there have been plenty of level-headed reviews pointing out what's good and what's bad about it, with each one being after hundreds of hours of gameplay put into it at this point in time.

Explain to me how Fallout 4 is a better game in literally any aspect? I've put over a hundred hours in both, most Bethesda games actually.

Literally everything about Starfield is better than that turd

Give me anything, you say better in some ways worse in others, which ones are worse?

 

[ReBurn]

Gaming hasn't been pushed forward by anyone for the last couple of generations.

 

[March Climber]

Explain to me how Fallout 4 is a better game in literally any aspect? I've put over a hundred hours in both, most Bethesda games actually.

Literally everything about Starfield is better than that turd

Give me anything, you say better in some ways worse in others, which ones are worse?

I told you I'm not doing this song and dance. You can look at the Starfield review thread for the positives and negatives. You can look on youtube for even more opinions and comparisons if you want. CohhCarnage gave a fairly level-headed opinion of his time with the game and had one of the best bottom-line statements ever said about it.

I'm not here to derail this into yet another Starfield thread and feed into more copium about the game. It is an alright game, but not a great game, and that's okay. My point was that Bethesda should not be releasing 'just okay' games at this point in time. Especially not after 8 years or more of dev time put into it(5 or more years if you technically count F76).

 

[bitbydeath]

Honestly, I don't even know what are you trying to say. I think you have to be blind if you don't see the technical advancements when comparing GTA V to RDR II. That being said, I don't expect there will be as significant jump from RDR II to GTA VI, we have simply hit diminishing returns. There will never again be such a jump in visual fidelity as there was when going from PS2 to PS3 or PS3 to PS4 generation.

Arguably PS4 to PS5 was the biggest leap graphically if we count The Matrix demo.

 

[HL3.exe]

Why? What open world game does it better?

It's easy to criticize, it's hard to make something thats feasable. A sandbox mission structure where you can do whatever doesn't make sense for a super directed game like GTA or RDR2.

Maybe for a Deus Ex game, sure. But GTA isn't Deus Ex and it never will be.

Not do whatever, but to create actually cohesive systems that can be depend upon. Not just context sensitive one-off mechanics that you can never use in any other instance.

• Calling the police to distract them so you can infiltrate another mission location.
• Use social media if you need a specific character to assassinate.
• Follow the ambulance car when he drives into the hospital so you can sneak if after it, if the player needs te be inside.

Etc.
Receive a objective and let the player play around the the simulated systems to figure out a way.

Games like Watch-dogs 2 or MGS5 made great strides in achieving the creative problem solving route in a Open-world settings with cohesive simulated systems. To me, that's way more engaging then: 'watch cutscene -> follow waypoint -> randomly get into gunfight that the story demands -> watch cutscene.' It's mind numbingly boring design. The fantasy of Grand Theft Auto wasn't 'doing scripted missions', it's 'playing around in a reactive world and making a interesting mess'

Don't get me wrong, I love good storytelling in games and watching cutscenes now and again, but I -as the player- would rather solve the problem myself using the mechanics and tools given, instead of letting the game solve the problem for me, and making me feel like a actor moving into place without reading the script beforehand. I think there is a clever middle ground that is still untapped that can progress their design and inspire other designers/studios.

 

[Arsic]

This may surprise you but people just want a more polished product once something is a success. It doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel.

GTA has done plenty correctly and layered in more every new game. I personally don’t like the franchise but love red dead.

What more does it need to do ? Started as a top down single player game. Now ? After several iterations it’s a massive open world game , with third person combat , multiple protagonists , and massive amounts of content. Then add on the online multiplayer which has keeps this game making absurd money plus players happy, and you can see they have done an amazing job moving this franchise forward.

 

[Fabieter]

They worked on this for 10+ years how is it still 300m budget. Do those people work for free with the post launch support.

 

[RaduN]

Not do whatever, but to create actually cohesive systems that can be depend upon. Not just context sensitive one-off mechanics that you can never use in any other instance.

• Calling the police to distract them so you can infiltrate another mission location.
• Use social media if you need a specific character to assassinate.
• Follow the ambulance car when he drives into the hospital so you can sneak if after it, if the player needs te be inside.

Etc.
Receive a objective and let the player play around the the simulated systems to figure out a way.

Games like Watch-dogs 2 or MGS5 made great strides in achieving the creative problem solving route in a Open-world settings with cohesive simulated systems. To me, that's way more engaging then: 'watch cutscene -> follow waypoint -> randomly get into gunfight that the story demands -> watch cutscene.' It's mind numbingly boring design. The fantasy of Grand Theft Auto wasn't 'doing scripted missions', it's 'playing around in a reactive world and making a interesting mess'

Don't get me wrong, I love good storytelling in games and watching cutscenes now and again, but I -as the player- would rather solve the problem myself using the mechanics and tools given, instead of letting the game solve the problem for me, and making me feel like a actor moving into place without reading the script beforehand. I think there is a clever middle ground that is still untapped that can progress their design and inspire other designers/studios.

Absolutely true.

 

[SkyHighTrees]

Currently playing through GTA 5 ps5.

I'm not worried. They are way too far ahead of clowns that made starfield.

I know dan houser and laslow are off rockstar, but I bet their tech team, art team, is pretty much the same. Game will look fantastic