Why are Rockstar games rated so highly by reviewers?

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I just got Red Dead Redemption a couple weeks back off PSN for $7.50 and so far it's alright. However, the controls are just horrible. I don't get how a game with such horrible controls is sitting at a 95 on Metacritic, not that it's going to change obviously.

I'll start with how bad the horse controls. The horse controls like a car instead of a horse. The turning radius on the horse is ridiculous. You can't tell the horse to stop so when you get to the place you want to stop, you have to get off the horse while moving and it just looks horrible and immersion breaking as that's not how a cowboy gets off a horse. You have to steer the horse for every little turn (even if it's like a 1 degree curve) and the horse will run into a rock if you don't steer him. Horses can follow a path all on their own, they aren't inanimate objects. It really makes gunfights on horseback all the more frustrating as you can't shoot behind you and just let the horse drive itself as he'll hit a rock or something. Shadow of the Colossus did all of this stuff so much better on PS2; you could stop Argo on a dime, you didn't have to constantly steer Argo (just lead), you could shoot a bow and arrow behind you at a colossus's eye without worrying that Argo would hit a rock, and you had a bunch of tricks you could do on Argo.

Just like every other Rockstar game, the character controls suck as well. You literally have to tap X to sprint as John Marston. There's no point in a game even having a sprint button when you have analog sticks to begin with let alone needing to tap a button to sprint, it's just ridiculous. Everything you do as Marston feels so mechanical, there's no smoothness to the controls. Just climbing a ladder feels so mechanical. Just with every other Rockstar, the aiming and shooting just doesn't feel tight enough, which is why Rockstar games always have an auto-aim mechanic. Aiming isn't that bad though if you're decent at drag scoping, which I constantly do on horseback. One thing I don't get is why Rockstar keeps using a freaking little white square as the aiming reticule (at least in RDR and MP3).

My last thing with Rockstar is I don't understand why they make open world games but make all the missions so linear. I just did a mission to rescue someone from in a building but you have literally no freedom but to do anything other than you're told. I was literally told and pointed to climb a ladder, then pointed and told to climb another ladder, and pointed to get in through a window. Rockstar would be better at making something linear like Uncharted vs making these open world games.

I just did my first bounty mission yesterday, and there is no fucking way I'm ever doing another one. I only did the bounty because it was on my way to this Stranger mission I wanted to do. However, once I killed the guy, I was forced to go all the way across the map to the Armadillo jail and I couldn't use any fast travel method whatsoever. And I couldn't go and do that Stranger mission I was right by either, I had to literally stop everything and go to this damn jail with guys on horses trying to kill me for some reason, it's not like they were an actual threat, they were nothing but annoyances.

I also feel Dan Houser is one of the worst video game writers working right now. Max Payne 3 was one of the worst written video games I've ever played, and we're talking about video games here. At least in RDR, there's at least SOME self-awareness going on in the writing. He doesn't get that having characters talking about "issues" for really no reason is not how you go about making your work actually tackle issues. It just feels so inorganic having characters just start blabbing about the government and such. I really think if Dan Houser was writing in any other medium, he'd be considered a hack in the same way Stephenie Meyer is.

I realize some of this is subjective, but there's plenty of objective criticisms, especially with the horse controls. I just don't get how reviewers can give a game like RDR 9+ scores when there is so much the game can do better while there is precedent of previous games doing the same things much better. Regardless of how much you may personally love RDR or a GTA game, there are flaws that have to be reflected in the score. Hell, many times my favorite game of the year, I score lower than a 9/10.

 

[Jusey1]

Most official reviewers don't really do their job correctly... That or they could've been paid to give it an "expected" rating to increase sales. ("Expected" meaning while players were waiting for the release, they got hyped and thought the game would be awesome but it truly isn't so reviewers will be paid to give those high scores to make those hyped players believe they are correct and ye'h)... Though that's just an idea that just came to me and I am most likely wrong with that XD.

But in all honestly, I just stick to what I know. Rockstar specifically though, don't care for them.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

A lot of people focus more on storytelling than on which button does what. RDR's story is outstanding, and very well acted too. I also appreciate the more eerie, surreal version of the Old West. The only thing that brushed off me was the decision to make Marston run by pushing a button without having to actually press forward on the analog stick. Big deal.

On the subject of Rockstar, I've never played a bad game of theirs. I think the GTA games have been solidly fun since well before GTA III, and everything they do on the sidelines - Max Payne, Bully, The Warriors - always receives top notch development.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

A lot of people focus more on storytelling than on which button does what. RDR's story is outstanding, and very well acted too. I also appreciate the more eerie, surreal version of the Old West. The only thing that brushed off me was the decision to make Marston run by pushing a button without having to actually press forward on the analog stick. Big deal.

On the subject of Rockstar, I've never played a bad game of theirs. I think the GTA games have been solidly fun since well before GTA III, and everything they do on the sidelines - Max Payne, Bully, The Warriors - always receives top notch development.

I understand liking a game's story a lot. For example, I loved Binary Domain's story in an action sci-fi movie sort of way, it handled all the cliche scenes excellently in my opinion. With all that said, I can't give the game more than a 7 due to the other aspects of the game. I loved Eternal Sonata's story, but I can't give the game past an 8 due to the simplistic battle system. A good story doesn't excuse poor gameplay nor does good gameplay excuse a poor story either. Max Payne 3 is probably the worst game I've played on PS3; I hated the characters, story, presentation, and the shooting mechanics themselves were horrible.

 

[gavinmcinns]

snip

Huge detailed worlds that draw you in and make you want to explore. Controls have heft and weight unlike every other game ever. In a game like red dead redemption, Rockstar is trying to suck you into the old west and make you the cowboy. They want you to smell the desert air and the dried up cow shit you stepped in, taste the bootleg tequila while you play cards on the porch in the shade. Cartoon tight controls don't fit in a world like this. I suggest playing any other rockstar wannabe game if this is what you're looking for.

 

[Racecarlock]

Maybe because the reviewers liked the game?

Oh, couldn't be though. After all, how can people have different opinions than you? It's not like the internet is chock full of reviewers, any one of which you can go to to get an opinion on a game that matches yours, right?

It got high scores because reviewers liked it. It's that simple. If it doesn't match your opinion, find other reviewers. It's not like there's a lack of them.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

CHOOSE ONE

1. Story heavy games are rated higher than mechanically robust games (or REAL games, if you're one of THOSE people).
2. The gaming journalism field is corrupt, and the scores are purchased.
3. The gaming journalism field is full of incompetents, and there was no need to purchase scores.
4. Every AAA game is rated on a 9-10 scale anyway, so 9.5 is actually average.
5. It's a viscerally exciting game that shows well in short bursts, and reviewers are pressed for time.
6. They gave it a 59 and the numbers were inverted.
7. They liked the game.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

I am about the same as you. I am kind of pondering if rockstars games are actually good or not. On one hand they are unquestionably good, but on the other hand I don't always care about them after I stop playing them. Like with GTA 5 I played it enjoyed, but when I had to give it away, I never ended up missing it. If I really loved it, why didn't I go out and buy a new copy after I had to give up my old one?

I think the reason for this divide is that rockstar games are very technologically impressive so you have to give them a high score because you can see the amount of effort and skill it took to make. Then there is how everyone knows they will be good games. We all knew before GTA 5 came out that it would be the best game ever. Even if the disk was replaced with a piece of ham it would have still scored high.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

snip

Huge detailed worlds that draw you in and make you want to explore. Controls have heft and weight unlike every other game ever. In a game like red dead redemption, Rockstar is trying to suck you into the old west and make you the cowboy. They want you to smell the desert air and the dried up cow shit you stepped in, taste the bootleg tequila while you play cards on the porch in the shade. Cartoon tight controls don't fit in a world like this. I suggest playing any other rockstar wannabe game if this is what you're looking for.

There isn't much "weight" to the controls in RDR, they're just bad. As a cowboy, you can tell a horse to stop. And, since when does basically time stop "fit" into a western? And, the first Mercenaries and Far Cry 3 both blow anything Rockstar has done out of the water (Watch Dogs will as well) because they offer open-ended ways to complete missions, which are what open world games are supposed to do.

Maybe because the reviewers liked the game?

Oh, couldn't be though. After all, how can people have different opinions than you? It's not like the internet is chock full of reviewers, any one of which you can go to to get an opinion on a game that matches yours, right?

It got high scores because reviewers liked it. It's that simple. If it doesn't match your opinion, find other reviewers. It's not like there's a lack of them.

You can like game while still recognizing its flaws. Quite of few of my criticisms aren't opinions but what the game does poorly like riding a horse, which is takes up quite a lot of your time playing RDR.

Because if you sit down and take a close loose at one of their games, especially GTA V, and you rid yourself of bias, you can see quite easily that no other developer can touch Rockstar's ability to simply nail every minor detail of a living, breathing open-world game. i mean, honestly, find me a single game that has an open-world map that even comes CLOSE to comparing to GTA V, Red Dead Redemption, GTA V or even LA Noire. That's not to say the others are bad, it's just saying that Rockstar's worlds are just that incredible.

You may not fully enjoy the stories (Aside from LA Noire, I have enjoyed the stories from every Rockstar open-world game to date), and the game play may frustrate you (GTA IV devolved into a car chase only game for me), but you really can't deny the technical marvel of their games, and you really can't deny that no other game comes close to touching the amount of content and detail within their games.

Rockstar didn't make LA Noire. Mercenaries, Far Cry 3, and Arkham City are probably my favorite open world games, Dishonored if that counts. I really don't get making an open world game, then having linear missions. I don't care about technical marvels or amount of content especially when the quality of the content is so low at points. There has been 2-3 missions where I'm herding cattle, which were so boring. Then, Rockstar has to have stupid racing missions; if I want to play some kind of racing game, I'll play a real racing game.

 

[SnakeTrousers]

You can't tell the horse to stop so when you get to the place you want to stop[...]

You can, actually. Hold down R1/RB (or R2/RT if you flip the controls).

You can like game while still recognizing its flaws. Quite of few of my criticisms aren't opinions but what the game does poorly like riding a horse, which is takes up quite a lot of your time playing RDR.

Except that that is an opinion, yours. I've had the odd problem with the horse riding, but nothing so terrible as to make me throw my controller down in disgust. It was never really that big an issue.

 

[Racecarlock]

Maybe because the reviewers liked the game?

Oh, couldn't be though. After all, how can people have different opinions than you? It's not like the internet is chock full of reviewers, any one of which you can go to to get an opinion on a game that matches yours, right?

It got high scores because reviewers liked it. It's that simple. If it doesn't match your opinion, find other reviewers. It's not like there's a lack of them.

You can like game while still recognizing its flaws. Quite of few of my criticisms aren't opinions but what the game does poorly like riding a horse, which is takes up quite a lot of your time playing RDR.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to find the same flaws that you do. Or even that everyone has to see your flaws as flaws.

Hate to tell you this, but it's all opinion. Some people do like how the horses control. Whatever. This is what makes humanity great. We're not a hive mind. We don't change our opinions simply because random other people on the internet said we should. You have a problem with that? Then write your own review. Let's see how you handle lots of people telling you to change an arbitrary number at the end of the review after playing the game and deciding that your opinion needs to change because they said so.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I don't know how to break this to you, but high scores do not mean a near-perfect game. They mean it did what it wanted to do really well. RDR's plot and storytelling was pretty damn good, and Rockstar produces generally really good games. If some parts are dodgy and it gets a good score anyway, it's because those parts weren't particularly central to the experience or could be overlooked in light of the game's accomplishments.

I think overall, games are rated too highly. We rarely see threes on reviews and 5-6 is not an average score. But the scale is all a bit higher and realising that makes sense of some of the scores you see.

Not that scores matter when the review itself is good.

 

[endtherapture]

Because if you sit down and take a close loose at one of their games, especially GTA V, and you rid yourself of bias, you can see quite easily that no other developer can touch Rockstar's ability to simply nail every minor detail of a living, breathing open-world game. i mean, honestly, find me a single game that has an open-world map that even comes CLOSE to comparing to GTA V, Red Dead Redemption, GTA V or even LA Noire. That's not to say the others are bad, it's just saying that Rockstar's worlds are just that incredible.

You may not fully enjoy the stories (Aside from LA Noire, I have enjoyed the stories from every Rockstar open-world game to date), and the game play may frustrate you (GTA IV devolved into a car chase only game for me), but you really can't deny the technical marvel of their games, and you really can't deny that no other game comes close to touching the amount of content and detail within their games.

Skyrim, Oblivion, Morrowind, The Witcher, Guild Wars 2....

 

[putowtin]

Personal Taste

I love the first Fable game, but dislike the second and loath entirely the third
That's my choice though.

Look at it with a different product, a car. We both test drive the same car, you love it, the colour, handling, the seats that gently massage your buttocks. Whereas I found the colour too garish, compared the handling to driving a shopping trolley and now have a back pain from the stupid seats. Our personal likes and dislikes were different before we even got into the car, thus our experiences were different leading to one of us buying it and the other swearing off the brand forever.

As for game critics, our own Greg Tito gave Dragon Age 2 five stars, a lot would disagree with that, I agree, but again it because of taste.


Damn it captcha stop trying to sell me crap!

 

[Casual Shinji]

The problem with Rockstar -- the one that I have with them at least -- is that they've gotten too serious, which started with GTA4. Their games have always been about slightly over the top satire, and in the pre 7th gen era when their work was more cartoony, this worked. But as soon as they went full realism, Dan Houser's writting just got overly preachy, pissy, and cynical. Max Payne 3 is the worst offender.

As you said, it's like characters can't utter one sentence that isn't filled with cynicism or sarcasm about the government, "the Man", or popculture. Again, in a cartoony setting this works, because you won't take it too serious and thus won't feel like you're being condescended.

I haven't truly enjoyed a Rockstar game since Bully. In fact I'd go as far to say that Bully is really the only Rockstar game I ever enjoyed.

 

[Rastrelly]

The only good Rockstar game I played was GTA. And I mean the first GTA. Other games were plain not interesting. I stopped even looking at their games after plain horrible GTA3 which for some reason everyone called one of the best games ever. Dunno.

 

[RedDeadFred]

CHOOSE ONE

1. Story heavy games are rated higher than mechanically robust games (or REAL games, if you're one of THOSE people).
4. Every AAA game is rated on a 9-10 scale anyway, so 9.5 is actually average.
7. They liked the game.

Probably a combination of these 3 (mostly number 7 though) although I'd say the scale is probably more around 8-10.

I enjoyed your "choose your own answer" response.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Because they're technical behemoths. I honestly think the initial impact of any Rockstar game is like BAM! and almost always the praise of their games die down over few short weeks. GTA IV in particular was a marvel! A true achievement of design, in its engine, animation; it was a great-looking game, a realistic game, and playing GTA IV at its launch was like being a part of a whole new world, like gaming itself was changed forever.

Then a few weeks later it was like... oh. That wasn't actually much fun, was it.

Then Saints Row 2 came out and now GTA IV sits as one of the most disappointing games of the era.

Rockstar has always bred a sort of fevered excitement, because they truly are masters of their craft. Getting it all at once is a pitched, high-octane experience that leaves an incredibly positive impression. It is the aftertaste of a Rockstar game's launch where the flaws start to show. If GTA V were reviewed a month after GTA V came out, it would have been critically lambasted in areas where prior it would have been praised.