-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Rockstar's Game Design is Outdated - NakeyJakey
- Thread starter Arion
- Start date
no? Rockstar can very much do its own thing and be clearly successful at it. No need to drop everything and emulate everyone else just because people like to complain. It's okay to just not like their games lmfao. Just like it's okay for Rockstar to continue with what its been doing for 15+ years now.
Wow, what a great counterargument to the video and all the arguments the man made.
I love Knack as much as the next guy, but a bit hyperbolic there mate.
Man this guys videos are great, really well done and thought out. I'd honestly like to debate/discuss this topic for hours since it's pretty fascinating of a topic that can honestly get deeper and deeper to the point of, "What even is fun".
I think the fatal flaw of this video however is him comparing the game to Fall Out: New Vegas and almost accidentally stating that Fall Out does "Role Playing" a lot better than Red Dead. Which would make sense, due to the fact that Red Dead never qualifies itself as a Role-Playing game. And I think that is a pretty big distinction. I'm almost at the thought that Rockstar has crammed SO many things into their titles that they are now at "RPG" esque proportions and feel bare bones in that regard, when in reality they never were trying to BE a RPG in the first place.
Their next title will definitely be the one to pave the way to what exactly they are wanting out of their game titles. I'm over the moon in love with RDR2, but I do agree with a lot of the complaints about overly linearity in an open world immersive title, but at certain points you have to excuse a lot of those issues due to the scope and detail they put into everything.
I think the fatal flaw of this video however is him comparing the game to Fall Out: New Vegas and almost accidentally stating that Fall Out does "Role Playing" a lot better than Red Dead. Which would make sense, due to the fact that Red Dead never qualifies itself as a Role-Playing game. And I think that is a pretty big distinction. I'm almost at the thought that Rockstar has crammed SO many things into their titles that they are now at "RPG" esque proportions and feel bare bones in that regard, when in reality they never were trying to BE a RPG in the first place.
Their next title will definitely be the one to pave the way to what exactly they are wanting out of their game titles. I'm over the moon in love with RDR2, but I do agree with a lot of the complaints about overly linearity in an open world immersive title, but at certain points you have to excuse a lot of those issues due to the scope and detail they put into everything.
I love when things become your "thing" and then you are stuck doing it for the rest of time, haha. It's so simple yet brilliant.
Great video. Dude is funny and the editing is pretty impressive for a 30+min video. Some really good points especially regarding the issues with the honor, wanted systems and the way the game wants to be a vast, emergent, creative experience but often just collapses into a pedantic, overly protective, coddled time for the player. Part of game design is trying to incorporate and marry each of the varying systems at work to try and create a kind of internal logic for the rules of the game, RDR2 doesn't do a good job of that at all
It is incredible how dated the game feels, because it looks like something from a generation ahead.The missions seem like the natural progression of the way that videogames were heading in the 360/ps3/wii era where babying the player became norm and developers took away much of the agency we'd come to take for granted in games. And I guess knowing how long the game took to make, it's no wonder it feels anachronistic and against the grain.
Like, in the time since the first and second RDR we've had Nintendo release Skyward Sword and BOTW, which couldn't be further apart in their approach. The first being the end product of a generation of games insulting a player's intelligence and ability to figure shit out on their own to a complete backlash against that kind of design and a return to an experience more akin to the first Zelda game which left the world up to the player to explore and experiment with.
Rockstar does such an incredible job in terms of the detail and care taken in presenting the characters, the visual minutia, it is a stunning achievement in a lot of ways. It's just unable to find an over-arching structure that does justice to these incredible achievements in storytelling and worldbuilding.
It is incredible how dated the game feels, because it looks like something from a generation ahead.The missions seem like the natural progression of the way that videogames were heading in the 360/ps3/wii era where babying the player became norm and developers took away much of the agency we'd come to take for granted in games. And I guess knowing how long the game took to make, it's no wonder it feels anachronistic and against the grain.
Like, in the time since the first and second RDR we've had Nintendo release Skyward Sword and BOTW, which couldn't be further apart in their approach. The first being the end product of a generation of games insulting a player's intelligence and ability to figure shit out on their own to a complete backlash against that kind of design and a return to an experience more akin to the first Zelda game which left the world up to the player to explore and experiment with.
Rockstar does such an incredible job in terms of the detail and care taken in presenting the characters, the visual minutia, it is a stunning achievement in a lot of ways. It's just unable to find an over-arching structure that does justice to these incredible achievements in storytelling and worldbuilding.
I really enjoyed the video and agree with his main points.
Apologies if this idea has been posted already, but he didn't touch on the one thing that made me stop playing RDR2, which is the unchanging nature of the basic gameplay. I guess more specifically the combat. It was the same at hour 1 as hour 20. It was just braindead simple and not engaging in the slightest. Once you figure out the pattern to the combat there is nothing else there. Its immediately boring.
There are bits and pieces to the game design (random encounters in the world, some of the interactivity that springs from that, character interactions at the camp) that seem new and fresh. But as a whole, i would say the part of RDR2 that isnt the story and presentation (ie. the video game part of it) is plain bad.
Apologies if this idea has been posted already, but he didn't touch on the one thing that made me stop playing RDR2, which is the unchanging nature of the basic gameplay. I guess more specifically the combat. It was the same at hour 1 as hour 20. It was just braindead simple and not engaging in the slightest. Once you figure out the pattern to the combat there is nothing else there. Its immediately boring.
There are bits and pieces to the game design (random encounters in the world, some of the interactivity that springs from that, character interactions at the camp) that seem new and fresh. But as a whole, i would say the part of RDR2 that isnt the story and presentation (ie. the video game part of it) is plain bad.
Great video. I had the exact same experience with the Saint Denis gunsmith, too.
I think the Lego analogy is a great one. I said as much in the Spoiler Thread after I'd finished the game, but when the game is so locked down and actively punishes you from straying from the script laid out for you, it lives and dies by exactly how engaging that script actually is. And some missions in RDR2 are absolutely great, but when I look back on it a few weeks later my overwhelming memory is ride a horse to the mission giver, ride a horse to the mission objective, shoot a bunch of guys, then ride all the way back home again. Dozens and dozens of times over the course of the game. I thought RDR2's storytelling, writing and character work were just outstanding, but goddamn it was a slog to play through.
I think the Lego analogy is a great one. I said as much in the Spoiler Thread after I'd finished the game, but when the game is so locked down and actively punishes you from straying from the script laid out for you, it lives and dies by exactly how engaging that script actually is. And some missions in RDR2 are absolutely great, but when I look back on it a few weeks later my overwhelming memory is ride a horse to the mission giver, ride a horse to the mission objective, shoot a bunch of guys, then ride all the way back home again. Dozens and dozens of times over the course of the game. I thought RDR2's storytelling, writing and character work were just outstanding, but goddamn it was a slog to play through.
I really have to say, the part where your weapons are back on your horse when you get ambushed and you have to re-equip them absolutely drives me insane. Stop putting your goddamn guns away, Arthur. I never said you could do that.
I love RD2, but this video is spot-on (and entertaining as hell). Rockstar can do what they want, but I'd support a move toward a more consistent experience.
I love RD2, but this video is spot-on (and entertaining as hell). Rockstar can do what they want, but I'd support a move toward a more consistent experience.
I definatley agree with you on that one. The hold X to run and walk by default mechanic is extremely antiquated and just makes playing a chore. Gaming shouldn't feel like labour. Especially playing online where everything has a sense of urgency but to have mash X to get you player to move is just prehistoric bullshit and is unpleasant.
Highest rated by critics, lets not pretend like that actually means anything. The user score is a good bit lower (Barely making it into the top 50 this gen). GTA IV is the 3rd best game of all time using that logic.
Fair points. Since the genre, and even Rockstar's own library, kind of celebrates player freedom and expression. I don't blame people for getting whiplash every time these narrative shackles get put on. Most of the time during these games, you're allowed to fully indulge in that freedom, many might argue it's even encouraged. You're bound to notice whenever this gets taken away. I understand why Rockstar does this, as it opens up the narrative possibilities that people clearly enjoy. Maybe they can work on fool-proofing their set-ups a bit more, I guess. The reason why the older GTA games suffered from it less is because everything important to the story didn't actually exist in the world. Your relationship with the cutscenes was clearer, as it didn't try to seamlessly integrate the two.
I havnt played RDR2 so I wont comment on the game, but I never before seen a NakeyJakey video either and I gotta say, I really like what he's doing. He managed to explain both with words and visually what he was saying so even the dumbest (me for instance) perfectly understood what he meant.
Gonna have to look up his content more
Gonna have to look up his content more
I think the critical receptions can sometimes set up the wrong kinds of expectations.
Last edited:
That harmonica part made me lol so hard because I tried the exact same thing. I got even more pissed when I actually got a harmonica, only to find out that I need an specific one for the mission. Don't even get me started with the damn pipe.
While I agree with you that comparing Fallout to RDR is a bit like apples to oranges, is it not also true that large open world games are becoming RPGs without ever classifying themselves as such? The line gets blurred every year - the last 2 Assassin's Creed games have been RPGs in all but name but I don't think I've ever seen Ubisoft put that label on it. I would say the same is true for RDR2, it is a game of managing stats, choosing your character's role, etc. It's not as deep as AC, and nothing on Fallout though, but I'm definitely interested in where Rockstar go next.
I can totally see a 'realistic' modern GTA, where you have your guns in your car and can only carry 2 guns... I'd buy it but it perhaps would need to be called something other than Grand Theft Auto.
It also raises the correct point from the video where 'playing the role' falls apart as soon as the game doesn't let you do something, or teleports you to a near location for a camp, etc.
So we should not take critics score as actual scores but instead we should take user scores as an actual reflection of games quality when it comes RDR 2? Is it for only RDR 2 or all the other games too?
I'm not sure if you read the post I was responding to but it said "It's so outdated it's the highest rated game on Xbox One and PS4" and I'm saying it's not, unless you ignore the opinions of most of the people that played it and submitted a score.
But generally yes, metacritic is shit in general but I'd say user scores are generally a better representation of what people actually think over critic scores. It's probably better to just not appeal to metacritic at all in discussions like this.
Interesting, I would say other people scores should not mean shit to an individual either be a critic or forum poster.
Well the argument that person was trying to make was "Look how much people like this game", so picking users scores would make far more sense since it's a better representation of what more people think. My point is metacritic scores in general shouldn't mean shit to anyone, but since that poster was using them as a way to try and argue against the points being made in the video, picking critic scores over user scores makes even less sense.
Fair point, but each of those games you mentioned still don't come close to RDR2.
(Don't apologise for your English buddy all good)
I just dont see that way personally , since both parties are biased as fuck when it comes to scores , so either take both of em with a grain of salt and know that its just a subjective opinion of an individual at that time and place or take none of it. People usually dont bring up user scores
What don't you get? If someone is using scores as a way of saying 'You're wrong, look how popular this game is', why would it make more sense to use scores from a small number of critics compared to a much larger number of consumers? I don't follow the logic in that at all.
It's like saying "You're wrong because these 10 people think it's the best game of the generation" while ignoring the 100 other people who don't even think it's a top 20 game.
they don't come close in certain aspects, not all of them.
gameplay and combat system are better in all the game listed.
also i don't really pull my hair out of my head for the main plot of this game...
it's still my goty with gow and the yakuza series, but the game is far from perfect in many aspects.
Very, very good video!
Tho I have to assume that the discrepancy of the high ratings and his opinion may actually come from the fact that many people just don't care or are easily blinded by high production values, I too loved to explore and drive around in Rockstars open worlds but the missions themselves weren't ever really the most amazing thing there is. His mentioning of Minecraft and co is interesting in the way that it also could imply that many adults just lose their hunger for actual play and they just want to be entertained in a more passive way. Maybe they don't have the energy anymore to be creative themselves in games (or I just misrepresent what is really going on, could be that too)
Edit: Also the problem he describes is one that I also have with many linear games that are by nature, very linear already. When I get confronted by choices or actions that are dictated very strictly by developer intention and there really is no creativity or freedom in the slightest sense then that really makes me angry a lot of times. I know the game is a linear game with a linear told story and it demands from me to push x to make that story go into that direction, but I feel like an idiot when it is presented to me in such an obvious way. I'd rather have a good old completely non interactive cutscene than a very poor illusion of choice!
Tho I have to assume that the discrepancy of the high ratings and his opinion may actually come from the fact that many people just don't care or are easily blinded by high production values, I too loved to explore and drive around in Rockstars open worlds but the missions themselves weren't ever really the most amazing thing there is. His mentioning of Minecraft and co is interesting in the way that it also could imply that many adults just lose their hunger for actual play and they just want to be entertained in a more passive way. Maybe they don't have the energy anymore to be creative themselves in games (or I just misrepresent what is really going on, could be that too)
Edit: Also the problem he describes is one that I also have with many linear games that are by nature, very linear already. When I get confronted by choices or actions that are dictated very strictly by developer intention and there really is no creativity or freedom in the slightest sense then that really makes me angry a lot of times. I know the game is a linear game with a linear told story and it demands from me to push x to make that story go into that direction, but I feel like an idiot when it is presented to me in such an obvious way. I'd rather have a good old completely non interactive cutscene than a very poor illusion of choice!
Last edited:
because reviewers usually dont rate games 0/10 or 10/10 because of some obnoxious reason. Reviews , the text itself is actually a good justification for why that gave the score they did .People go to RT to check film rating first over something like IMDB, theres a reason for that.
You're just wrong now, reviewers give games perfect scores all the time. Even if they didn't, I'm not sure how that would matter to the point I'm making.
It really lacks some depth of analysis, video games theory (fun vs narative) and history of Rockstar games or their creative-production processes. "Outdated" is a value judgement that puts a hierarchy and a linear progress to game design...and that's not really how it works.
n
In other words, it's fun to watch (as in entertaining), very convincing at what it tries to say, but won't explain you why these choices were made. It's very demagogic, hence the success of this thread.
There's also a misuse of "game design", confused with "gameplay", "mission design" etc.
n
In other words, it's fun to watch (as in entertaining), very convincing at what it tries to say, but won't explain you why these choices were made. It's very demagogic, hence the success of this thread.
There's also a misuse of "game design", confused with "gameplay", "mission design" etc.
Popularity doesn't mean good
Brexit was popular too
RDR2 isn't as bad as brexit, but it's close
edit: obviously I'm making a stupid drunk post, but I don't think the path Rockstar is on is sustainable forever if they don't innovate. A good story is still a good story even if the gameplay is flawed, of course, but I personally found the game torturous and gave up after about 10 hours
Last edited:
I don't think any outlet (or atleast most) mean to imply perfect game even with "perfect" score.
Yup professional critic reviews are much more "trustworthy", than metacritic user reviews in example where people can review without even touching the game. I haven't checked but I'd assume there's some "protest" votes too for not having it on PC. Also review bombing that has been increasingly common, hurts the legitimacy of user reviews a lot. Of course critic reviews don't invalidate anyone's personal preference either.
Last edited:
Why reinvent the wheel. I don't think Uncharted games make huge leaps into new and different directions either, doesn't seem to hurt the sales or critical reception.
Edit: Also I don't think having some freedom and choice how to differently tackle missions/quests is in any way a new idea. It's just more of a (c)RPG/Immersive Sim thing. Or open world games that don't necessarily have many set objectives to accomplish and rely on freeform gaming (Minecraft, survival games).
Last edited:
Thanks OP, video is spot on. This and the outrageous online is why I knew RDR 2 wouldn't last long in my PS4.
Didn't know the guy. Subscribed.
Didn't know the guy. Subscribed.
Excellent video. It seems the way RDR2 mixes its brand of open world gameplay with really strict scripted missions is the perfect recipe for player cognitive dissonance. Inconsistency. It breaks the established rules of the game for the player. Not really sure how to fix it without completely overhauling the mission design though . . . . maybe some mission areas could be cordoned off with the army or police or rival gang or any overt-showing of security to signal to the player that things are going to be extra finicky with this one.
All they need to do is go back to the old PS2 GTA design. Those games had missions similiary designed to this game but the difference is that Rockstar didn't as much fail states as this game so you could "break" the missions and do the objectives your own way instead of following what Rockstar wanted you to do.
Can't disagree with anything in that video, really. It's a wonderful game when it's busy being wonderful. Unfortunately it's missteps are so jarring they impact my overall opinion of it more than the usual sort of minor bugbears I might have.
Otherwise, never heard of NakeyJakey, but been happily binging his channel. His Halo 2 Letsplay is so fucking good.
Otherwise, never heard of NakeyJakey, but been happily binging his channel. His Halo 2 Letsplay is so fucking good.
MMM. Just love that in this thread about a video dumb mother fuckers come in to reply to the title ignoring an almost 40 fucking minute video essay that intelligently and articulately discusses the issues just to say "no rockstar is right". I fucking hate you.
This is honestly the main reason why I dropped the game about halfway through, I might go back to it later but the actual gameplay and the combat is just not very good, it meant there was little motivation for me to continue playing the game. I just can't understand how a studio with the time, resources and budget of R* can still make a game where the gameplay and combat controls are that mediocre, or at least not as good as I expected considering the crazy critical reception. If the most important aspect of a game by far isn't very good or at least top tier then it's no way close to a 10 for me, no amount of story, characters or open world can make up for that.
But I guess as long as the games continue to receive 10s across the board with little mention of the terrible controls then I doubt they'll look at improving them much anytime soon.
yep, enjoyed the game but did have similar complaints as this video essay.
am I the only one that would have been fine if they halved or even took out 2/3 the total story mission count at the trade off of way more flexibility and options and approaches for each one?
am I the only one that would have been fine if they halved or even took out 2/3 the total story mission count at the trade off of way more flexibility and options and approaches for each one?
Heh, I'll say I loved the game and little of the stuff he mentioned bothered me but at the same time I think his suggestions are very valid and good constructive criticism (how to make the game even better).
