Why are Rockstar games rated so highly by reviewers?

[Weaver]

I dunno, I really don't like most Rockstar games. I feel like they all run and control like shit.
I guess I just personally put more stock in having a smooth game experience than an open world.

 

[GamerAddict7796]

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

You're trying to say that Skyrim has more detail in it's world than GTA or Red Dead? Not played the Witcher or Guild Wars but the Elder Scrolls have nowhere near the detail of an R* game. This is from a massive fan of The Elder Scrolls.

OT: I thought the controls were brilliant as it was like controlling an actual horse. An actual living horse and not a car with a horse body. The fact that it kept going a bit after you jump off was amazing. The game is still the most beautiful game I've ever played, even better than a lot of PC games.

 

[Lilikins]

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

You're trying to say that Skyrim has more detail in it's world than GTA or Red Dead? Not played the Witcher or Guild Wars but the Elder Scrolls have nowhere near the detail of an R* game. This is from a massive fan of The Elder Scrolls.

OT: I thought the controls were brilliant as it was like controlling an actual horse. An actual living horse and not a car with a horse body. The fact that it kept going a bit after you jump off was amazing. The game is still the most beautiful game I've ever played, even better than a lot of PC games.

I wouldnt entirely say that, the Morrowind series has an incredible amount of detail if you think about it, all the books written, the quests, the sceneries changing, the daedric lords, the guilds...etc etc. Look at ES3, not the best graphics but still, the game has so much detail in Lore and questing that its not even funny anymore.

For my personal two cents about Rockstar, I stopped playing GTA after San Andreas so I cant judge GTA 5, but GTA 4 was....I think I managed to play it for about an hour or 2. The characters just seemed, donno how to say it properly... they were trying too hard I guess?

RDR I admit I had alot of fun with, of course the controls are a bit wonky at times, but it wasnt anything game breaking, but yes I do think the score is too high on it. Though as someone else in this topic said, the scores on most games nowadays are too high. I could count the games Id give a higher score then 9 on one hand. Though the gaming society would most likely rage to no end if all of a sudden they were going to start giving lower scores. I cant even imagine how some of the 'hardcore' fans of any specific company would react if their beloved franchise would get lower then a 9 all of a sudden.

 

[Story]

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.

Oh hehe, okay I'll play along.
I'll choose number 7, because I'm more of a optimist than a pessimist. Though the pessimist in me wants to choose 2.

As for Rockstar themselves and Red Dead Redemption in particular, I think they're fine. After all not many developers have the same type of ambitious games under their belt. Red Dead Redemption was fun when I played it, same with GTA5 and 4. I also happen to think the controls were pretty good for those games (xbox/xbox360). I've never played any of their games to completion however, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

 

[Above]

GTA V was massively Overrated and that still got great reviews, primarily because if you review something bad when the fans enjoy it/are excited for it, you immediately haven't played the game/don't know how to have fun.

why i loved the Escapist is they're the only website that game GTA V a mixed review on Metacritic (last time i checked) and to be fair, it was a stupid reason ('they're just bad characters, not in a built way, but they're evil') in a game called Grand Theft Auto, but the fact they gave their honest opinion rather than just following the 'the game is perfect, if i say anything else i will be hated' trend that seems to go around now.

 

[nightmare_gorilla]

i played red dead for all of ten minutes really, didn't enjoy the style of game or the "hard man" bs that was the main character so I killed it. as for Rockstar games in general? No freaking idea. I rage quit gta 4 after the 3rd mission I believe where they ask you to drive around the worlds most annoying guy ever. I remembered that in every single gta game ever the first round of missions, first arc of the story really, you always wind up working for characters who are annoying as all hell and who are designed to be that way. I think they want you to get a sense of "man when i'm in charge!" but see we already have that, everyone who's ever worked a shit job in their lives knows the feeling of working under incompetence and I have a great job now I don't need to get that feeling from something supposed to entertain me. the thing about gta 4 and I have to assume gta 5 too that I will never let slide is the driving. the games transportation is done all with driving, you spend most of your time in a car getting from place to place and the driving is absolute shit. and no one has yet given me a good reason why that is. all anybody says is "once you get used to it it's ok." but see saints row driving has always been fun, you don't have to "get used to it" because it is genuinely good and enjoyable. the driving in GTA reminds me of the car handling in crackdown which was TERRRRRIBBBBLLLLEEE but you got around mostly "tick" style jumping from rooftop to rooftop I barely drove in that game and you don't have to if you don't like it. saints row 4 came along and we got super powers now no reason to drive in that game either. so rockstar can do one of two things to improve their games immediately, fix the shit driving mechanics or offer an alternative. I don't understand how anyone could call GTA "perfect" after playing saints row and getting a taste of an actually fun game set in the same style. sure saints has it's issues it's buggy as all get out for a finished product and they seem insistent on nickel and diming people with dlc packs. but the actual game and the story and the concept of saints row surpassed GTA in saints 2.

for the review scores? I dunno I think there's some pressure on reviewers to like Rockstar games because they are thought of as such... well rockstars. they make one game every 5 years or so and as far as I can tell there's nothing special about them. but it's like call of duty right, there's tons of hype and it sells like crazy so people want to be a part of that instead of just letting it pass them like a fart in the hallway.

 

[endnuen]

Short answer; They make genuinely enjoyable and good games.

 

[C14N]

I kind of tend to wonder the same thing sometimes, although I felt this much more about the post-COD4 Call of Duty games. The reviewers finally seem to have gotten tired of them (Ghosts is the first in the "mixed reviews" section of Metacritic) but I really couldn't see any of them as more than expansion packs of COD4 with increasingly silly campaigns glued on to the thing people were actually there for, multiplayer.

With Rockstar though, it is just the case that people like these games. It's pretty outlandish to suggest that everyone is just lying to make the small number of us feel stupid. I've come to realise that the things GTA fans want out of a game just aren't the things I want. What I see as pretty detrimental flaws never even cross their minds as problems. I kind of look at this as there are games I loved that have problems that destroy it for others (like the Mako in Mass Effect 1 or the endless soap-opera soliloquies of Metal Gear Solid) that make me enjoy the game more.

This sounds pretty bad but I also think that critics are sort of expected to just dish out perfect scores to GTA too and sort of risk losing a lot of their audience if they don't. We saw strong negative backlash against people who gave GTA 5 less than a perfect score so I think a lot of outlets will get their biggest Rockstar fan to write the GTA review to avoid that sort of thing.

I do agree that Houser not getting taken to town more is confusing though. Basing this mostly off GTA 4 which is the only one I've finished, the writing just seems incredibly juvenile and the humour is embarrassingly obvious. It's the kind of writing I would expect to see in a straight-to-DVD crime movie starring 50 Cent or Steven Seagal. People are always taking David Cage to town for his problems but Houser almost never seems to get mentioned.

 

[Cybylt]

Is this another one of those "I didn't like a popular game so it must be some kind of conspiracy" threads?

It's the only kind of thread Mr. Phoenix makes, from what I recall. Expect all responses to be "Nuh-uh, because I say so," and any attempt at progressing the discussion to be derailed.

Anyway, I thought RDR was fun, though John may have schizophrenia or something since every interaction of his with a colleague with less scruples shifts between saying he'll miss them and threatening to kill them with every scene.

Some of this is outright false, as mentioned there is a way to make your horse slow down and the horses do have some measure of automatically following trails, if you let go of the left stick to let it work anyway. Mashing a face button to sprint is indeed annoying and they could tighten their shooting mechanics but the latter isn't an objectively bad thing, it simply comes down to your experience with games in general. PC players, particularly those more familiar with shooters will likely see more problems in it than those who have only played console games.

 

[Robert Marrs]

Well first of all you can stop the horse. I believe its bound to R1/right bumper. The reason rockstar games generally get good scores is because they are good games. Anything that is bad about them is outweighed by the good things in the games.

 

[gargantual]

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.

That's no suprise. I read 'Jacked' the story behind Grand Theft Auto. And when the Hot Coffee Mod re-sparked Hilary Clinton, and Joe Lieberman's video game crusade, and these guys had to testify in front of Congress, post San Andreas was a very emotionally draining period for the Houser bros. From Doug Lowenstein fmr ESA head getting tired of covering their ass from media flares, developer team disputes, political interest groups picketing outside their New York building during GTA4's development, I think all of that eventually had an effect on the writing where it went from intially a bunch of scottish-american devs poking fun at America's hypocrisies in the 5th and 6th console gen, to pointing them out in a somber and bitter way, having just received their 'welcome to america' moment. From that perspective I can see how they would want to hold a mirror to America's backwardsness without fictionalizing any progressive solutions to those problems. And doing so, really isn't a GTA thing.

 

[endtherapture]

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

You're trying to say that Skyrim has more detail in it's world than GTA or Red Dead? Not played the Witcher or Guild Wars but the Elder Scrolls have nowhere near the detail of an R* game. This is from a massive fan of The Elder Scrolls.

OT: I thought the controls were brilliant as it was like controlling an actual horse. An actual living horse and not a car with a horse body. The fact that it kept going a bit after you jump off was amazing. The game is still the most beautiful game I've ever played, even better than a lot of PC games.

Yes, I am actually. Way more detailed. You can go inside all buildings and caves for one...

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I can't really add more to what's been already said. Rockstar's been lucky enough to garner praise as the first "mature" games development studio, and plenty of journalists come with backgrounds in Liberal Arts or Communication. They're seeing games that tackle serious subject matters and, well, tend to get hopeful for the medium - when you could get the same basic approach by watching anything by Michael Mann or any one of the berjilion police procedurals out there.

So you've got heavily story-driven games with what appears to be more teeth than, say, James Elroy or any of the typical gritty television shows that marked Pop Culture; when it's really just amazement at the sight of seeing some of these recognizable themes being put to use in the gaming industry that's causing them to issue glowing reviews like that.

I'm pretty sure a lot of the games that get scored extremely high in Rockstar's stable would deserve less, if it weren't for the fact that they're reasonably novel on an individual level. We didn't have any serious Western epics before Red Dead Redemption, and the studio's struck a gold mine by capitalizing on constant and unrelenting satire. Fans of black humor can nod their heads and go "Isn't the American Dream just the most fucked-up thing ever?", safe in the knowledge that there's at least one franchise that agrees with them.

If you work past the novelty or the satire, though, you're left with competent open-world games that don't necessarily reinvent the wheel. Based on that assessment, I have to give props to GTA V for its technical prowess - but the protagonists and overall plot just leave me cold.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Is this another one of those "I didn't like a popular game so it must be some kind of conspiracy" threads?

It's the only kind of thread Mr. Phoenix makes, from what I recall. Expect all responses to be "Nuh-uh, because I say so," and any attempt at progressing the discussion to be derailed.

Anyway, I thought RDR was fun, though John may have schizophrenia or something since every interaction of his with a colleague with less scruples shifts between saying he'll miss them and threatening to kill them with every scene.

Some of this is outright false, as mentioned there is a way to make your horse slow down and the horses do have some measure of automatically following trails, if you let go of the left stick to let it work anyway. Mashing a face button to sprint is indeed annoying and they could tighten their shooting mechanics but the latter isn't an objectively bad thing, it simply comes down to your experience with games in general. PC players, particularly those more familiar with shooters will likely see more problems in it than those who have only played console games.

Agreed on both points.

On both the OP making threads specifically to get into fights with people opposite his opinion and on RDR being a fun game. A lot of people bashing the controls in this thread don't even remember what each button is supposed to do due to their own incompetence. The game comes with a manual and teaches you the mechanics in a gameplay tutorial fashion that they most likely skimmed through.

Now Phoenixmags is famous for these flamewars and I hate seeing when someone does stuff to try and piss off the community to prove some point to themselves in some way of feeling secure of their unpopular opinion. Especially when that opinion is misinformed.

 

[crazygameguy4ever]

I'm not a huge fan of the game made by rockstar, although I do like Max Payne 3 game.. only played a little of Red Dead redemption but i wasn't a huge fan, it just wasn't much fun.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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.

I'll try that next time I play, hopefully that works. I looked in the options to see how to stop a horse, but I'm almost positive it's not there. I bought the game digitally so I don't have the manual.

There isn't really a "problem" with the horse controls, the problem is that the horse controls like a car instead of a horse. The horse can't steer himself and the horse's turning radius is so fucking huge, my car has a smaller turning radius, that's not an exaggeration.

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.

You may fine the controls fine, but it's still a fact that the horse doesn't control like a horse is supposed to.

Actually they are opinions. The horse riding was fine. I get that pushing a button multiple times instead of just once can be physically exerting but I'm sure you can pull through.

(Yes that was sarcasm, stop being so fucking lazy).

Open world games are about that, open worlds. Not open mission objectives. Rockstar still excels are the quality of their worlds, not just the quantity. Mercenaries had fun ways to do shit, but it was all just an incredibly foggy map without much detail.

And if you're going to use a game that hasn't even come out yet as an example...you're really grasping at straws here.

Ubisoft decided to change the way they controlled horses in Assassin's Creed after RDR came out because they felt they needed to stand by that level of quality.

Rockstar games (and Red Dead specifically) are gaming marvels. On both a story and technical level. I never had any issues with how the game played. You just seem to be awfully picky about what you want instead of using what you were given.

I never complained about the fact you have tap X for the horse go full speed. Again, it's a fact that the horse controls like a car; he doesn't steer himself and his turning radius is ridiculous.

Why make an open world game when you are going to make missions where you literally have to go up a specific ladder and go through a specific window? The only thing Rockstar's open world does is make you travel so god damn far to get to the game's content.

I've seen full gameplay missions in Watch_Dogs and I can tell the controls are better than anything Rockstar has done just like I can tell GTAV's controls are clunky like RDR just watching someone play.

Rockstar's stories are usually horrible as Dan Houser is a horrible writer, characters just babbling about government isn't how you comment on an issue (which Houser does in the very opening cutscene of RDR). If Max Payne 3 was a movie, it would be on the level of Michael Bay bad.

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.

A million times this. Dan Houser doesn't know how to properly integrate commenting about themes and issues in any kind of organic manner. Max Payne 3 is the worst game I've played in a long time, I hated the story and writing, and the gameplay blew too.

As to the writing, I don't get your point at all; video games writing is largely appallingly bad and Dan Houser is one of the few games writers I really respect. His games are largely satirical, so yeah, they have 'characters discussing issues', which I guess is awful in your mind? I don't see where you're coming from but you must realise that even if he's not to your taste, calling him one of the worst writers out there is absurd hyperbole with the low, low, incredibly low standards of your average video game's writing.

You talk about issues in an organic manner. Houser just has characters start babbling about stuff in rather awkward manner like when Marston meets Bonnie's father for the very first time, they just start talking about the government and shit. It's a simple writing principle that you show instead of tell and all Houser does is tell.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I thought Red Dead had some of the best horse controls I've played, I don't get your huge beef with it but to each their own.

OT: I thought the controls were brilliant as it was like controlling an actual horse. An actual living horse and not a car with a horse body. The fact that it kept going a bit after you jump off was amazing. The game is still the most beautiful game I've ever played, even better than a lot of PC games.

Play Shadow of the Colossus. If the path zigzags, the horse will zigzag without any input.

 

[In Search of Username]

As to the writing, I don't get your point at all; video games writing is largely appallingly bad and Dan Houser is one of the few games writers I really respect. His games are largely satirical, so yeah, they have 'characters discussing issues', which I guess is awful in your mind? I don't see where you're coming from but you must realise that even if he's not to your taste, calling him one of the worst writers out there is absurd hyperbole with the low, low, incredibly low standards of your average video game's writing.

You talk about issues in an organic manner. Houser just has characters start babbling about stuff in rather awkward manner like when Marston meets Bonnie's father for the very first time, they just start talking about the government and shit. It's a simple writing principle that you show instead of tell and all Houser does is tell.

I see where you're coming from, but it's never felt inorganic to me. People talk about politics! You can have characters just talking about politics sometimes! It doesn't all have to be veiled allusions and such. I agree that Max Payne was really heavy-handed with that stuff, but I think RDR handled it just right, personally.

Regardless, can you name some games that actually do fit your definition of showing, not telling, with regards to political issues and such? Most games I can think of that deal with politics at all tend to do it in a very unsubtle, up-front kind of way similar to Houser's but with (generally) less wit. (e.g. Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, The Witcher).

 

[NiPah]

I'm guessing the reason Rockstar's games are rated so highly is explained in the 1-2 page write up that is coupled with almost every game review. It's a helpful section, the little number stuck to the end is largely superfluous and provided for the people who don't wish to read the entire review or want something objective to measure against other games.

Let's look for example how the Escapist backed up their 5 star rating:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/7607-Review-Red-Dead-Redemption

So there, 2 pages answering your question, for further information you might want to PM Russ Pits and not actually ask the forum since they weren't the ones who rated the games (thank god too because most opinions I've read in this topic are pretty god awful). I hope this helps, since this methodology can be used to understand other reviews as well, now sometimes there are reviews without words but chances are you're just reading metacritic and not the actual review, fear not since metacritic actually links you to the actual reviews! it's almost magical I know.

 

[Flammablezeus]

I agree with the OP.

The controls just kill any interest I have in those games. And Rockstar just flat out refuses to fix these problems even though people have been pointing out these flaws for years.

Nothing feels satisfying to pull off in their games. Even if something cool does happen, I don't feel responsible for it. It just feels like something that randomly happened while I was just present there.

And yeah, the linearity of the single player missions is fucking ridiculous. Talk about hand-holding. Just give me the final objective, and I'll get it done. Detailing every little step is just plain boring.

I get that pushing a button multiple times instead of just once can be physically exerting but I'm sure you can pull through.

(Yes that was sarcasm, stop being so fucking lazy).

Um, no. Fuck, no.

It isn't a matter of being lazy. It's straight-up terrible game design. The whole "tapping A to run" garbage is not physically exerting, it's just annoying. It feels like a QTE that never ends. Also, I can't control the camera when tapping A. The shoulder buttons exist for a reason.

Also, running should've been the default mode when you push the left stick all the way forward, with walking being a slight push on the stick.

Doing it the way Rockstar does adds absolutely nothing to the game; it's not immersive, FFS - if anything it breaks it.

QTE that never ends? You realise you hold A to maintain your current speed, right? You only tap A to accelerate.

Nope. Holding A only makes your character jog. Tapping is needed if you wanna sprint.

My bad, assumed you were talking about the horse controls since I can't imagine anybody would sprint around the map when you can ride a horse. I like it the way they have it, where you can jog easily but you can't just sprint everywhere like in Quake. That would be a bit silly.