Why are Rockstar games rated so highly by reviewers?

OldDirtyCrusty

New member
Mar 12, 2012
701
0
0
EternallyBored said:
With a game that broke momentous records at the tail end of a console generation, my own personal opinions, and the colossal support I've seen for it online and off, you'll have to forgive me if I support the notion that most of Rockstar's ratings and praise are actually earned by the quality of their games. Even without score inflation, I have not personally played a Rockstar game that I would rate below an 8 or 4 stars, whichever system you want to use. Feel free to disagree, but in Rockstar's case, I think they earn their AAA reputation, even if that means that some reviewers are probably cutting them more slack than they deserve from time to time.
You just earned 5 wanted stars and a hug. There`s nothing to add except that reviewers are cutting THE ONE the deserved slack. You just gave the right words for another reason why THE ONE deserves all the praise. THE ONE raised the bar higher in storytelling and locations with every release. THE ONE invented open world and every other game so far failed to reach their heights (the only exception would be SR2 compared to GTA4 but the episodes made up for this).
 

Sandernista

New member
Feb 26, 2009
1,302
0
0
SKBPinkie said:
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.
I usually don't sprint everywhere I go, and neither does anyone I know. Having to exert oneself to sprint in a game seems completely natural to me. You shouldn't sprint 100% of the time, or even 50% of the time.

OP: I don't have the same problems with the controls that you do. While I definitely like SoC's horse mechanics better, that doesn't make RDR's horse mechanics bad. I never had trouble shooting behind me either, I could steer my horse just fine while picking off pursuers. Maybe you need to... git gud
 

gargantual

New member
Jul 15, 2013
417
0
0
Because they had the balls to hire a UK tabloid spin-master to help market the first GTA, when their 'competition' at the time was Ocarina of Time, Resi Evil, Tomb Raider etc.

Unorthodox, but clever. It got more gamers paying attention when the govt started wagging their fingers and giving the series the platform it needed to evolve.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
EternallyBored said:
At first glance, over 60 movies in 2013 alone scored above a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, with Gravity being a 97%. Of course, that ignores that RT uses a different algorithm to amalgamate scores than Metacritic does, and Rotten Tomatoes gathers many Many more reviews, since the number of movie critics vastly outweighs the number of game critics out there. That, and movie reviews are even more diverse in their rating mechanics than video games tend to be. That was a poor comparison on your part, but I get what your saying and you're not totally wrong.
There are many more movie releases than game releases. Plus, that 60 movies at 90% only mean 90% of critics liked those movies, it doesn't mean the average review score is 9/10. You'd probably be very hard pressed to find a movie that gets an average rating of 9/10 across all the critics. You'd see movie critics like Roger Ebert say XYZ movie is one of the best of the year while his partner Siskel didn't even like said movie. I want to see that in game reviews. Doesn't everyone say how games are 100% subjective yet they are reviewed in a manner that comes off as games actually being rather objective where most of the reviewers' scores are probably within 1.0 of each other. Doesn't that strike you (and I hope everyone) as very odd and mostly flat out wrong?

OldDirtyCrusty said:
THE ONE invented open world and every other game so far failed to reach their heights (the only exception would be SR2 compared to GTA4 but the episodes made up for this).
No GTA game has ever topped Mercenaries.

Hafrael said:
I usually don't sprint everywhere I go, and neither does anyone I know. Having to exert oneself to sprint in a game seems completely natural to me. You shouldn't sprint 100% of the time, or even 50% of the time.

OP: I don't have the same problems with the controls that you do. While I definitely like SoC's horse mechanics better, that doesn't make RDR's horse mechanics bad. I never had trouble shooting behind me either, I could steer my horse just fine while picking off pursuers. Maybe you need to... git gud
I don't have many problems either, it's just that the controls could be so much better. There's no reason for me to have to steer the horse away from a rock; it's not that I can't do it, it's that I shouldn't have to do it. There's no reason to have a sprint button because everything can be mapped to the left stick from inching along to walking to jogging to sprinting. Also, when not in combat Marston sprints with just holding X whereas in combat, you need to tap X to sprint; the controls aren't even consistent. And I did git gud playing MGO for 4 years (which has no sprint button BTW), most of time shooting horseback I drag scope all the enemies, I don't really even need the Dead Eye mechanic to hit them.
 

OldDirtyCrusty

New member
Mar 12, 2012
701
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
No GTA game has ever topped Mercenaries.
Sweet opinion, you can keep it. The demos for mercenaries are enough to prove otherwise but hey everyone has it`s own cup of tea.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
EternallyBored said:
At first glance, over 60 movies in 2013 alone scored above a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, with Gravity being a 97%. Of course, that ignores that RT uses a different algorithm to amalgamate scores than Metacritic does, and Rotten Tomatoes gathers many Many more reviews, since the number of movie critics vastly outweighs the number of game critics out there. That, and movie reviews are even more diverse in their rating mechanics than video games tend to be. That was a poor comparison on your part, but I get what your saying and you're not totally wrong.
There are many more movie releases than game releases. Plus, that 60 movies at 90% only mean 90% of critics liked those movies, it doesn't mean the average review score is 9/10. You'd probably be very hard pressed to find a movie that gets an average rating of 9/10 across all the critics. You'd see movie critics like Roger Ebert say XYZ movie is one of the best of the year while his partner Siskel didn't even like said movie. I want to see that in game reviews. Doesn't everyone say how games are 100% subjective yet they are reviewed in a manner that comes off as games actually being rather objective where most of the reviewers' scores are probably within 1.0 of each other. Doesn't that strike you (and I hope everyone) as very odd and mostly flat out wrong?
Just no, there are more video games released every year than movies released to theaters, even if we include things that are released straight to DVD, throwing indie games into the mix, blows the number of movie releases out of the water.

As for the rest, it seems like your only experience with movie reviews was Siskel and Ebert, which is a really flawed example, for a number of reasons.

First of all, there's a reason why Siskel and Ebert were considered the best in the industry, their debates were often reasoned and intelligent when they disagreed with each other, although they often agreed with each other too. The rest of the movie review industry also has problems with reviewing in lockstep, and in the last five years, the movie review industry has been hit with many of the same criticisms the game review industry is accused of.

Secondly, Seriously? Siskel has been dead since 1999, and Ebert died last year, you're comparing the entire games review industry to two of the most famous critics in entertainment history, there haven't been critics as prolific as Siskel and Ebert in any review industry, not just games.

Following that up, movie reviews do pretty much the exact same thing, the only difference is that instead of giving lockstep reviews to action schlock like the movie equivalent to Call of Duty, the movie review industry eats up the Oscar bait movies, almost without fail, you will see perfect or near perfect reviews with the biggest sites surrounding these movies.

There are differences in the industries, though, the games review industry is consolidated more amongst a smaller number of big name review sites, whereas movie reviewers tend to be more separate and don't consolidate on a few well known websites. Almost every local paper has a movie reviewer that writes for them, while most people can't name many movie reviewers beyond Siskel and Ebert (who are both dead at this point), many gamers can't name individual reviewers either, but they can generally name the big sites those reviewers appear on. This probably exacerbates the problem you are perceiving, although both industries do it, the consolidated voice of the games review industry makes it seem more monolithic and single-minded.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
OldDirtyCrusty said:
Phoenixmgs said:
No GTA game has ever topped Mercenaries.
Sweet opinion, you can keep it. The demos for mercenaries are enough to prove otherwise but hey everyone has it`s own cup of tea.
Mercenaries has missions that aren't awfully linear and allow for creativity, GTA does not and is a poor open world game. Far Cry 3 demolishes GTA as well. The demo of Just Cause 2 is better than GTA. And, Watch Dogs is going to blow GTA out of the water.

EternallyBored said:
Just no, there are more video games released every year than movies released to theaters, even if we include things that are released straight to DVD, throwing indie games into the mix, blows the number of movie releases out of the water.

As for the rest, it seems like your only experience with movie reviews was Siskel and Ebert, which is a really flawed example, for a number of reasons.

First of all, there's a reason why Siskel and Ebert were considered the best in the industry, their debates were often reasoned and intelligent when they disagreed with each other, although they often agreed with each other too. The rest of the movie review industry also has problems with reviewing in lockstep, and in the last five years, the movie review industry has been hit with many of the same criticisms the game review industry is accused of.

Secondly, Seriously? Siskel has been dead since 1999, and Ebert died last year, you're comparing the entire games review industry to two of the most famous critics in entertainment history, there haven't been critics as prolific as Siskel and Ebert in any review industry, not just games.

Following that up, movie reviews do pretty much the exact same thing, the only difference is that instead of giving lockstep reviews to action schlock like the movie equivalent to Call of Duty, the movie review industry eats up the Oscar bait movies, almost without fail, you will see perfect or near perfect reviews with the biggest sites surrounding these movies.

There are differences in the industries, though, the games review industry is consolidated more amongst a smaller number of big name review sites, whereas movie reviewers tend to be more separate and don't consolidate on a few well known websites. Almost every local paper has a movie reviewer that writes for them, while most people can't name many movie reviewers beyond Siskel and Ebert (who are both dead at this point), many gamers can't name individual reviewers either, but they can generally name the big sites those reviewers appear on. This probably exacerbates the problem you are perceiving, although both industries do it, the consolidated voice of the games review industry makes it seem more monolithic and single-minded.
There's easily more movies released. Going to Rottentomatoes, there's 25 movies set to release Friday. There's only 12 games set to release Tuesday (tomorrow) across on all platforms, excluding duplicates like Dark Souls 2 on both PS3/360.

I just used Ebert and Siskel due to everyone knowing them. I could just as easily use MovieBob and Marter on the Escapist. Movie critics don't agree across the board that a certain movie is good. Vanilla Sky has a 40% at Rottentomatoes yet named as one of the best films of the year by some critics. You don't see that with video games. You don't go to IGN and see that a game is rated high, then go to Gamespot and see a low rating. You go to IGN and see a 8.5, then go to Gamespot to see an 8.0. Sure, there's a few movies a year that get praised by almost every critic. However, for the vast majority of movies, there are plenty of critics that love, like, dislike, and hate the same movie. You don't get that with video games except like Jim Sterling and that's about it.
 

fozzy360

I endorse Jurassic Park
Oct 20, 2009
688
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
OldDirtyCrusty said:
Phoenixmgs said:
No GTA game has ever topped Mercenaries.
Sweet opinion, you can keep it. The demos for mercenaries are enough to prove otherwise but hey everyone has it`s own cup of tea.
Mercenaries has missions that aren't awfully linear and allow for creativity, GTA does not and is a poor open world game. Far Cry 3 demolishes GTA as well. The demo of Just Cause 2 is better than GTA.

Nice opinions. I think you're flat out wrong, but that's my opinion.


Phoenixmgs said:
And, Watch Dogs is going to blow GTA out of the water.
Ok, no one should take you seriously if you're going to use an unreleased game to compare to an entire library from a particular dev.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
fozzy360 said:
Phoenixmgs said:
And, Watch Dogs is going to blow GTA out of the water.
Ok, no one should take you seriously if you're going to use an unreleased game to compare to an entire library from a particular dev.
I can say that because the gameplay demos of Watch Dogs are better than anything in GTA, I'm only talking about mission structure and the openness you are given to complete the mission. GTA doesn't come close to competing in that regard. Every mission in GTA is just go to point B and kill X enemies, you have no options to go about the gunfight other than out-shoot the AI. I quit playing RDR and went back to finish Far Cry 3 because every mission in RDR was so bad whereas in Far Cry 3 I have freedom to play in different manners.

This just released game footage from GameSpot shows you all the options you have in Watch Dogs, you don't have those options in GTA, which is why I don't like GTA. An open world game is supposed to be open-ended.
 

Shamanic Rhythm

New member
Dec 6, 2009
1,653
0
0
Out of interest, have you ever seen how easy it is for a real-life horse to turn itself around? I thought it was pretty accurate.
 

OldDirtyCrusty

New member
Mar 12, 2012
701
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Mercenaries has missions that aren't awfully linear and allow for creativity, GTA does not and is a poor open world game. Far Cry 3 demolishes GTA as well. The demo of Just Cause 2 is better than GTA. And, Watch Dogs is going to blow GTA out of the water.
He, he, sure, but all creativity isn`t worth much if the game itself isn`t any fun.
Just Cause 2 was a borefest with a sweet grapple hook but this gimmick didn`t save the game.
As for Far Cry3? I really liked the game but do you really want to take it as a example? The main missions are scripted shooting galleries. The outposts aren`t as much fun after completing them so many times.
Naming FC3 and damn GTA for having linearity in it`s mission, smart move. Sounds more like you`re missing creativity since GTA offers you more if you`re able to use the sandbox and create your own fun.

Watch Dogs? The game isn`t even out yet and Ubi is already in full damage control mode. Not that it couldn`t be the better game, i`ll keep my doubts until i get the chance to play it.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
OldDirtyCrusty said:
Phoenixmgs said:
Mercenaries has missions that aren't awfully linear and allow for creativity, GTA does not and is a poor open world game. Far Cry 3 demolishes GTA as well. The demo of Just Cause 2 is better than GTA. And, Watch Dogs is going to blow GTA out of the water.
He, he, sure, but all creativity isn`t worth much if the game itself isn`t any fun.
Just Cause 2 was a borefest with a sweet grapple hook but this gimmick didn`t save the game.
As for Far Cry3? I really liked the game but do you really want to take it as a example? The main missions are scripted shooting galleries. The outposts aren`t as much fun after completing them so many times.
Naming FC3 and damn GTA for having linearity in it`s mission, smart move. Sounds more like you`re missing creativity since GTA offers you more if you`re able to use the sandbox and create your own fun.

Watch Dogs? The game isn`t even out yet and Ubi is already in full damage control mode. Not that it couldn`t be the better game, i`ll keep my doubts until i get the chance to play it.
Just Cause 2's demo was more fun than any GTA I played. GTA like RDR is filled with subpar 3rd-person cover shooting. You have mission variety like races and stuff, but that is even worse because the racing is so bad when compared to an actual racing game. There's no point in playing GTA when other games do everything GTA does but better; if I want a TPS, I'll play Vanquish, Uncharted, Ghost Recon, etc.; if I want a heist game, I'll play PayDay. GTA is like Assassin's Creed, both have no core gameplay and don't do anything particularly well.

Far Cry 3 is rather linear. But based on your character skills (all the different takedowns open so many options to you) and how the enemy AI reacts, everything plays out rather differently, even just retrying taking outposts after dying plays very different. Whereas if I replay a mission in RDR, I'm just going to have a bunch enemies shooting at me from basically the same place every time. The AI in Rockstar's games are so basic that breaking line-of-sight doesn't matter and everything plays out so same-y because of it. Same thing with GTA.

People are just bitching about Watch Dogs' graphics and nothing else. I don't give a shit about graphics. The gameplay is still there. When Watch Dogs was first released, I didn't even care about the game because it just another lame open world game to me like GTA and Assassin's Creed as I don't like many open world games after Mercenaries showed me what an open world game should be. Then, I saw the gameplay demos of the game in action and how the hacking, stealth, and shooting all interplay with each other, I knew the game was going to be awesome. And the new videos on Watch Dogs only make the game look even better because I focus on the gameplay, not the graphics (it'll look good enough).
 

OldDirtyCrusty

New member
Mar 12, 2012
701
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Just Cause 2's demo was more fun than any GTA I played. GTA like RDR is filled with subpar 3rd-person cover shooting. You have mission variety like races and stuff, but that is even worse because the racing is so bad when compared to an actual racing game. There's no point in playing GTA when other games do everything GTA does but better; if I want a TPS, I'll play Vanquish, Uncharted, Ghost Recon, etc.; if I want a heist game, I'll play PayDay. GTA is like Assassin's Creed, both have no core gameplay and don't do anything particularly well.
Then you haven`t played any GTA game since they are way more fun and offer more variety than Just Cause. Which is also the reason any GTA got higher scores from reviewers.
You are mixing something up there because none of your named games offer the combination of the playstyles you get when you play GTA. If i want to play an open world i play most likely a Rockstar game. Did you also know that GTA3 sucess started the open world genre? So much for "no core gameplay". Also a reason for the high Rockstar scores, the games offer the fun and a perfect mix in a polished package.

Phoenixmgs said:
Far Cry 3 is rather linear. But based on your character skills (all the different takedowns open so many options to you) and how the enemy AI reacts, everything plays out rather differently, even just retrying taking outposts after dying plays very different. Whereas if I replay a mission in RDR, I'm just going to have a bunch enemies shooting at me from basically the same place every time. The AI in Rockstar's games are so basic that breaking line-of-sight doesn't matter and everything plays out so same-y because of it. Same thing with GTA.
The samey feeling is the one i got from FC3 outposts. While you`re right about the gameplay options what did you expect from a western game or an urban setting? Playing hide and seek in the jungle? GTA5 offers the option to hide in bushes but it all doesn`t matter very much since all the Rockstar open world games don`t focus on stealth.

Phoenixmgs said:
People are just bitching about Watch Dogs' graphics and nothing else. I don't give a shit about graphics. The gameplay is still there. When Watch Dogs was first released, I didn't even care about the game because it just another lame open world game to me like GTA and Assassin's Creed as I don't like many open world games after Mercenaries showed me what an open world game should be. Then, I saw the gameplay demos of the game in action and how the hacking, stealth, and shooting all interplay with each other, I knew the game was going to be awesome. And the new videos on Watch Dogs only make the game look even better because I focus on the gameplay, not the graphics (it'll look good enough).
Better watch out since it could be the same like AC...no core gameplay and not doing anything well but since the game isn`t out nothing to say on this from my side.

Ah, the mysterious wonder of gameplay tastes.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
OldDirtyCrusty said:
Then you haven`t played any GTA game since they are way more fun and offer more variety than Just Cause. Which is also the reason any GTA got higher scores from reviewers.
You are mixing something up there because none of your named games offer the combination of the playstyles you get when you play GTA. If i want to play an open world i play most likely a Rockstar game. Did you also know that GTA3 sucess started the open world genre? So much for "no core gameplay". Also a reason for the high Rockstar scores, the games offer the fun and a perfect mix in a polished package.
I've seen my friends play GTA Online for a couple hours, all the missions are the same kinda stuff you did in other GTA games. GTA3 was definitely new and different back when it came out but Rockstar has not improved their open world games since then. GTA3 wasn't that great either, the lock-on system was so bad it would lock onto civilians instead of enemies shooting at you. Vice City fixed that one thing and is pretty much the peak of the GTA series. Also, Mercenaries on PS2/Xbox was way better than any GTA game, which ruined Rockstar games for me. I then played San Andreas after Mercenaries and realized how shitty GTA was. Rockstar has evolved so little they have to include auto-aim because their shooting controls are so bad (even Max Payne 3).

The samey feeling is the one i got from FC3 outposts. While you`re right about the gameplay options what did you expect from a western game or an urban setting? Playing hide and seek in the jungle? GTA5 offers the option to hide in bushes but it all doesn`t matter very much since all the Rockstar open world games don`t focus on stealth.
The outposts play out differently because of the skills you get over the game and the game's enemy AI. They are basically set up in the same manner. The important thing is having options. If RDR had outposts, you would come to one with a bunch of enemies just shooting at you and all of them would play out like whack-a-mole. That's a big difference to me. A game doesn't have to focus on stealth. I wouldn't say Far Cry 3 focuses on stealth, it just has enemy AI that allows for stealth like Mercenaries and Watch Dogs.

Better watch out since it could be the same like AC...no core gameplay and not doing anything well but since the game isn`t out nothing to say on this from my side.

Ah, the mysterious wonder of gameplay tastes.
The first AC was actually pretty decent and had core gameplay. It was basically an open world Hitman game (Hitman-lite of course). The main flaw of the first AC was the intelligence gathering missions were horribly repetitive. Then, AC2 completely changed the series and all the assassinations sucked along with all the missions. I stopped playing AC at that point because the series went in the complete opposite direction that I was hoping for as I was hoping it would move more towards Hitman than GTA. The Glyph puzzles were actually the best part AC2. And, at least the 1st Watch Dogs will be good, I've seen plenty of gameplay demos, the gameplay is there. The series might turn to shit like AC but I don't see that happening as easily just because the core of Watch Dogs has more gameplay mechanics in place than AC ever did. Plus, Watch Dogs shooting is better than AC's horrible combat system. It really is almost impossible to die in AC.
 

OldDirtyCrusty

New member
Mar 12, 2012
701
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
The sp from GTA5 improved alot in terms of mission design as for the mp the good missions come in a bit late and it`s more about the coop experience. On the other side there are races (land, air, sea), an race editor, horde mode, typical competitive modes, an editor for competive modes, free updates and special events, you have free roam with gang hideouts and other stuff, besides getting into trouble with other players and fighting for bounties or crates is fun too.
San Andreas offered the freedom to roam in an entire state with lots of vehicles. This and the crazy missions led to high scores and is a reason people still play and mod the game.
Using auto aim in MP3? Nah, even with my doubts before i had no trouble playing it with a controller. Free aim is the only way to play this game. Besides i liked the enemy behavior from MP3.

When it comes to FC3 yes it isn`t completly focused on stealth, mostly i started out quit and then after detection continued Rambo style and got into hiding when the air got to thick. That`s how most outposts turned out gameplaywise. This continued with the outposts kept going on and turned into work after a while. The whole upgrades don`t improve on the fun for me since the game get`s to easy to fast. I always wanted to try out a minimal upgrade walktrough but lost interest in the game (got all the trophies).

What i still don`t get is that you compare side stuff like that with Rockstars mission design. If you want to rampage along there are no restrictions in the freeroam modes from all Rockstar open world games and there are alot of other options for having fun even if you`re a single only player. Especially GTA5 offers variety for this.

What i got is that you seem to dislike narrative in your open world(or to much of it). Correct me if i`m wrong (you`ll do it anyway, eh). This all still doesn`t dimish the quality and fun critcs had with the Rockstar games = high scores.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
OldDirtyCrusty said:
The sp from GTA5 improved alot in terms of mission design as for the mp the good missions come in a bit late and it`s more about the coop experience. On the other side there are races (land, air, sea), an race editor, horde mode, typical competitive modes, an editor for competive modes, free updates and special events, you have free roam with gang hideouts and other stuff, besides getting into trouble with other players and fighting for bounties or crates is fun too.
San Andreas offered the freedom to roam in an entire state with lots of vehicles. This and the crazy missions led to high scores and is a reason people still play and mod the game.
Using auto aim in MP3? Nah, even with my doubts before i had no trouble playing it with a controller. Free aim is the only way to play this game. Besides i liked the enemy behavior from MP3.

When it comes to FC3 yes it isn`t completly focused on stealth, mostly i started out quit and then after detection continued Rambo style and got into hiding when the air got to thick. That`s how most outposts turned out gameplaywise. This continued with the outposts kept going on and turned into work after a while. The whole upgrades don`t improve on the fun for me since the game get`s to easy to fast. I always wanted to try out a minimal upgrade walktrough but lost interest in the game (got all the trophies).

What i still don`t get is that you compare side stuff like that with Rockstars mission design. If you want to rampage along there are no restrictions in the freeroam modes from all Rockstar open world games and there are alot of other options for having fun even if you`re a single only player. Especially GTA5 offers variety for this.

What i got is that you seem to dislike narrative in your open world(or to much of it). Correct me if i`m wrong (you`ll do it anyway, eh). This all still doesn`t dimish the quality and fun critcs had with the Rockstar games = high scores.
I don't play Rockstar's games with auto-aim and I don't get why it's even there, it's the default option as well. So, if you just start the game without changing anything, you're playing with auto-aim on. That just shows Rockstar doesn't have confidence in their controls (and they put some kind of slow-mo time mechanic in their games too). And, their shooting controls are very lacking compared to even average TPSs like Uncharted. If you actually want to play most of the areas in Max Payne 3 as like an arcade shooter, you kinda need some sorta aim assistance because they constantly put enemies at you 9, 12, and 3 at decent range so you can't stay out in the open and not die. MP3 devolves into whack-a-mole for many of the game's levels. The police station level at the end was one of the few bright spots in the game because it was closed quarters and you didn't have to worry about enemies constantly pot-shooting you.

I'm not saying FC3's outposts were awesomely designed or anything. I'm saying the gameplay mechanics in FC3 allows for the player to tackle scenarios differently, I could mix stealth and action together. If RDR had outposts they would play way more same-y than they do in FC3. You would literally just come to the area with enemies shooting at you and every outpost would just be a cover shooting game of whack-a-mole. It's FC3's enemy AI (which isn't anything special) that allows for the different approaches.

I don't care if there's heavy narrative or not. It's all about having options to take care of enemies on your terms, that's the point of an open world game. I can plan my attack of an outpost in FC3. Each outpost is a "mini-sandbox" where you have many different options to take out enemies and different approaches. In RDR or GTA, it wouldn't matter where you approached from because you'd get to a point where the enemies just knew where you were and the game devolves into a bland shootout. I'd be guessing if you shot an enemy with a silent sniper rifle in GTA, all the other enemies would then magically know your position and start shooting at you.
 

OldDirtyCrusty

New member
Mar 12, 2012
701
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
I don't play Rockstar's games with auto-aim and I don't get why it's even there, it's the default option as well. So, if you just start the game without changing anything, you're playing with auto-aim on. That just shows Rockstar doesn't have confidence in their controls (and they put some kind of slow-mo time mechanic in their games too). And, their shooting controls are very lacking compared to even average TPSs like Uncharted. If you actually want to play most of the areas in Max Payne 3 as like an arcade shooter, you kinda need some sorta aim assistance because they constantly put enemies at you 9, 12, and 3 at decent range so you can't stay out in the open and not die. MP3 devolves into whack-a-mole for many of the game's levels. The police station level at the end was one of the few bright spots in the game because it was closed quarters and you didn't have to worry about enemies constantly pot-shooting you.
How can they be lacking when you don`t even know why it`s there and you`re fine playing free aim? Just because it`s the default option? What Uncharted does better are graphics and cinematic gameplay which is no surprise considering it`s basically a corridor TPS. I never felt that the shooting was bad in R`s games. To me it improved alot starting with RDR.
RDR had slo-mo, MaxPayne would be weird without it and in GTA5 1 character uses it for shooting another for driving. That are actually only three games of the last gen. I always thought it`s in for people liking slomo and not because it`s needed.
Don`t start on MP3 and needing aim assist just because of some more open levels. This is bullshit. I beat the sp on all difficulties with free aim and a gamepad. The harder ones kill you instantly if you try whack a mole. Bullet dodges and acting fast is essential for surviving.

Phoenixmgs said:
I'm not saying FC3's outposts were awesomely designed or anything. I'm saying the gameplay mechanics in FC3 allows for the player to tackle scenarios differently, I could mix stealth and action together. If RDR had outposts they would play way more same-y than they do in FC3. You would literally just come to the area with enemies shooting at you and every outpost would just be a cover shooting game of whack-a-mole. It's FC3's enemy AI (which isn't anything special) that allows for the different approaches.
Point taken. RDR is still the better game to me and many critics. It just offers so much more than FC3. FC3 don`t let you ride horses for example and the driving is bad compared to any GTA.
To be more serious FC3 is a FPS and focuses more on other elements than RDR or other TPS from Rockstar. Driving in FC3 is still just bad.

Phoenixmgs said:
I don't care if there's heavy narrative or not. It's all about having options to take care of enemies on your terms, that's the point of an open world game. I can plan my attack of an outpost in FC3. Each outpost is a "mini-sandbox" where you have many different options to take out enemies and different approaches. In RDR or GTA, it wouldn't matter where you approached from because you'd get to a point where the enemies just knew where you were and the game devolves into a bland shootout. I'd be guessing if you shot an enemy with a silent sniper rifle in GTA, all the other enemies would then magically know your position and start shooting at you.
Calling the outposts mini-sandboxes is way to much praise, this game isn`t Hitman or something but glad that you`re having fun.
About GTA: No, they don`t, at least not in GTA5. You can even sneak and enemies will search your last known location. They react to noise like running or the obvious gunshots.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
OldDirtyCrusty said:
How can they be lacking when you don`t even know why it`s there and you`re fine playing free aim? Just because it`s the default option? What Uncharted does better are graphics and cinematic gameplay which is no surprise considering it`s basically a corridor TPS. I never felt that the shooting was bad in R`s games. To me it improved alot starting with RDR.
RDR had slo-mo, MaxPayne would be weird without it and in GTA5 1 character uses it for shooting another for driving. That are actually only three games of the last gen. I always thought it`s in for people liking slomo and not because it`s needed.
Don`t start on MP3 and needing aim assist just because of some more open levels. This is bullshit. I beat the sp on all difficulties with free aim and a gamepad. The harder ones kill you instantly if you try whack a mole. Bullet dodges and acting fast is essential for surviving.
Uncharted's shooting is smoother than RDR or GTA or MP3. I'll actually dabble in Uncharted's competitive MP whereas I'm not even going to touch it with a 10 foot pole in a Rockstar game. Rockstar's character movement is way too jerky, shoulder swapping and weapon switch are done very poorly as well. You can check my Youtube (same as my user name) if you wanna check out my TPS skills, I'm literally the only player on PS3 or 360 that runs sniper in clan matches on Ghost Recon and I play sniper extremely aggressively. I pretty much drag scope all the enemies in RDR from horseback. So, 3 of the 4 Rockstar games this gen has slow-mo shooting. I beat MP3 on hard with free aim, check my trophies if you want, it's not that it was hard, just annoying and not fun. The gunfight with the guy with the grenade launcher in the hanger at the end emphasizes the problems with MP3; you have enemies at your 9, 12, and 3, and if you go too far to your right or left (to get in an actual good position), the game will cutscene kill you because you aren't supposed to go there. Bullet dodges are good but most of the time you get shot getting up from the dodge because Max won't go straight into cover from prone, he has to stand straight up like an idiot first (which is something you can do in other games).

Point taken. RDR is still the better game to me and many critics. It just offers so much more than FC3. FC3 don`t let you ride horses for example and the driving is bad compared to any GTA.
To be more serious FC3 is a FPS and focuses more on other elements than RDR or other TPS from Rockstar. Driving in FC3 is still just bad.
Well, you can't drive cars in RDR. You can drive stuff in FC3 that fits with the setting like cars, trucks, boats, 4-wheelers, etc. The driving is fine in FC3, I have no issues, but I also fast travel just about everywhere just like I do in RDR as well. RDR's horse riding is worse because the horse drives like a car instead of a horse like in Shadow of the Colossus. The only thing that's really different with a FPS and a TPS is usually the cover system, FPS almost never has one. In both TPS and FPS, you center the free look camera on the enemy and shoot.

Calling the outposts mini-sandboxes is way to much praise, this game isn`t Hitman or something but glad that you`re having fun.
About GTA: No, they don`t, at least not in GTA5. You can even sneak and enemies will search your last known location. They react to noise like running or the obvious gunshots.
It wasn't meant as praise, just meant as a way to describe. The developers of Splinter Cell Blacklist called most of their sections mini-sandboxes as well, which were smaller than FC3's outposts. It's just meant as a descriptor meaning you can take different approaches and different attack strategies.

I did a quick Google search and it seems GTA5's stealth is really bad. If you kill someone while in stealth it still alerts people. Most people would rather have crouch than stealth mode from the Rockstar forum thread I read through.
 

OldDirtyCrusty

New member
Mar 12, 2012
701
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Uncharted's shooting is smoother than RDR or GTA or MP3. I'll actually dabble in Uncharted's competitive MP whereas I'm not even going to touch it with a 10 foot pole in a Rockstar game. Rockstar's character movement is way too jerky...
Being such a great player and still having trouble? No need for checking your trophies or skills, why should you lie? You just named it yourself. You weren`t having fun while others, me included (and yes even critics) had a good/great time and weren`t troubled by the controlls. When it comes to shooting i take MP3 over Uncharted anytime. The gunfight at the end isn`t a design masterpiece but it had me pumped up instead of being annoyed and the cutscene kill happens there. Saying it`s a problem of MP3 makes it sound like it happens every stage.

Phoenixmgs said:
Well, you can't drive cars in RDR. You can drive stuff in FC3 that fits with the setting like cars, trucks, boats, 4-wheelers, etc...
Nah, still feels like horse to me. The driving in FC3 is still not nearly as good as in GTA. I agree with your TPS/FPS basics, the S at the end is a bit obvious. There still is a difference between FC3 and GTA/RDR. FC3 is a FPS with a open world while GTA/RDR are open world games. Can you name one FC3 mission not being based entirely on shooting? These "run around on drugs" levels to show off the graphic effects don`t count.

Phoenixmgs said:
It wasn't meant as praise, just meant as a way to describe. The developers of Splinter Cell Blacklist...
Look, i liked the outposts too but i don`t had less fun with RDR`s hideouts and using silenced weapons in GTA5 still works for me. Stealth could be better, true, good that the game isn`t a TPS, otherwise it could have hurt the scores.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
OldDirtyCrusty said:
Being such a great player and still having trouble? No need for checking your trophies or skills, why should you lie? You just named it yourself. You weren`t having fun while others, me included (and yes even critics) had a good/great time and weren`t troubled by the controlls. When it comes to shooting i take MP3 over Uncharted anytime. The gunfight at the end isn`t a design masterpiece but it had me pumped up instead of being annoyed and the cutscene kill happens there. Saying it`s a problem of MP3 makes it sound like it happens every stage.
I'm not having trouble. RDR is actually way too easy, I don't know if I even died yet. There were 2 times you had to go through this cave in the 1st section of RDR and I was just walking through it with the reticule up just shooting guys as I knew where they were as they all show up on radar; it was extremely easy, bland, and not fun at all. I really don't see the point of playing when a game is so easy that I don't even feel like my input matters like with how easy Assassin's Creed is, which is another game that is impossible to die in. With regards to the controls, it's just that I call do things faster and more efficiently in other TPSs. For example, a TPS with proper controls will allow you to shoulder swap without taking your left thumb off the left thumb stick, something RDR's and MP3's controls don't allow for. I wouldn't be surprised if I shoulder swap 100+ times in a 15 minute match on Ghost Recon. That's why I'd never play a Rockstar game competitively, the controls just aren't good enough. Character movement is just too jerky, which makes aiming harder for no reason; I can actually aim on horseback easier than on foot.

That gunfight in the hanger is just a microcosm for most of the levels of MP3, there's too much long distance shooting that makes the game into whack-a-mole. Way too many times you have enemies at your 9, 12, and 3 where you just can't move much at all.

The driving in FC3 is still not nearly as good as in GTA. I agree with your TPS/FPS basics, the S at the end is a bit obvious. There still is a difference between FC3 and GTA/RDR. FC3 is a FPS with a open world while GTA/RDR are open world games. Can you name one FC3 mission not being based entirely on shooting? These "run around on drugs" levels to show off the graphic effects don`t count.
Didn't like everyone complain about GTA4's driving? The driving is good enough in FC3 to get from point A to point B, which is really all that matters. I don't have an issue driving anything in the game. Nor did I have an issue driving in the GTAs that I did play. What I hate about GTA/RDR is that they have racing missions that are bad because the games are not racers so the races are average at best. I don't what average gameplay. I had to herd twice, race twice, and break in horses twice in RDR, and all of those missions were horribly boring; the breaking in horses was nothing but a boring QTE that you couldn't fail unless you fell to sleep. I haven't had really any great Western missions where you rob a train or something cool like that. FC3 does have racing missions (that are optional), you can do sidequests that aren't shooting (usually helping someone), you can play poker, and a decent amount of the main missions can be completed with stealth. Right now, I'm disguised in an enemy uniform in FC3, and you can just walk around the enemies during a mission, and this has been going on for about 3-4 main missions already. The Wanted Dead missions force you to kill the target with a knife.