-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Rockstar's Game Design is Outdated - NakeyJakey
- Thread starter Arion
- Start date
I meant it's hard to follow due to too many cuts and effects. Sorry but english ain't my native language
I mean you could have it both ways and have a game that doesnt play like molasses while also looking pretty.
Nintendo seems pretty good at that. Jake's nintendo jesus moment is the best takeaway from the video.
On my second play through now and still loving every minute of it. Being that this game is the second highest selling game this year and the highest reviewed, I would argue it is not outdated. This game could use a NG+ feature and/or an increased difficulty mode to extend it further.
OP
OP
I didn't say good gameplay and good graphics are mutually exclusive. Just that whenever a developer tries to hide their bad gameplay with good graphics it usually works.
I enjoy the gameplay. 👐🤠 maybe I'm odd, but the game was definitely my favorite gaming experience in years. It was the complete package for me.
Why is the discourse in this thread so poor? So many posts that outright ignore the video and essentially say "I like the game and so do critics"
User Banned (1 Week): Inflammatory commentary across in multiple threads; previous accumulated infractions
It's almost like the gaming media is a joke and has been for decades....
Seriously is there any other industry out there where the reviewers are as bad at their jobs as the gaming ones? We shouldn't have to rely on random youtubers for proper critique of games. Not solely at least.
Too afraid to find flaws in a game they like or "It works for me" in game mechanic form. The usual.
I'm struggling to finish it, honestly. When I'm playing I really enjoy it, but when I'm not, I feel no desire to start playing.
Is there any other industry where you'd be skinned alive for giving something a 7/10.... an 8/10?
I love the game, and it's undoubtedly my game of the year.
But I agree with everything in this video and had the same discussion with friends during my playthrough.
I hope Rockstar really innovate on their mission design with their next project.
But I agree with everything in this video and had the same discussion with friends during my playthrough.
I hope Rockstar really innovate on their mission design with their next project.
I agree with you, but to be fair, it's a much more complex medium to review than movies and music, that's way more subjective.
But yeah, since it's more complex, better reviewers are essential
I would assume one of those reasons is because these people probably don't try play off the beaten track and just b-line straight to what they are told to do.
Same here, at first it was amazing but the more I played the more you could see behind the curtain at how simple everything was.
I'm an inquisitive type of player and I was failing missions a lot for trying something. Now I'm picking it up a few times a week to do a few missions doing precisely what it wants me to do.
I've made the complaint before in another thread but there's an actual side mission where they've voiced alternative outcomes but they are all fail states unless you do what the developer that created the mission wanted so it makes me wonder why they voiced it at all.
The magic is partially gone but I'm still impressed by the story telling, voice acting, animations and world itself.
I'll get there eventually, I don't hate it I'm just disappointed that such a well crafted game's major flaw is it's mission design.
I really hope they shy away from this in the future and make things a lot more creative and optional.
Stop making authorities like something out of Minority Report, give me at least the black and white option of kill or don't kill with SOME quests because I understand some need to be story related.
Holy shit yes, I never thought about that but you are right.
Some missions actually did that, but a huge amount did not.
I only had time to watch four to five minutes but is he always in the shots wobbling around on his Swiss ball? It's really distracting as I'm not sure why he's in most of the shots. I'm unfamiliar with his other videos so that could be his thing I suppose but I couldn't hang with it.
The story of 70% of games this generation.
Because is a long ass review.
Yes he is. And I don't see what's distracting about it. You can't watch someone move and talk at the same time? How do you deal lectures?
No shit it's outdated, it's basically gta 3 in big and really pretty. The mission structure and fail states have not changed much since then. It's still a damn great game though!
Movie fandom is pretty bad, not international hate movement bad, but 'force women off social media cause muh ster wurs'.
You might argue it's not outdated, but as much a I love Rockstar I might be done if the next RDR or GTA game is 50 hours of go to mission, something goes wrong, shoot out happens, go back. GTA San Andreas at least mixed some stuff up. The mission design is such an after thought to the rest of all the incredible detail that I think I'd rather just have them make an interactive visual novel style of game than do another copy/paste mission over and over again.
I loved RDR2, but they really need to bring back some mission variety and find a way to bring the player agency into the missions themselves beyond answering positively or negatively to things.
That's the conclusion he comes to at the end of it too. That it's both.
Saw this video and thought about posting a thread about it. Glad someone did.
Really enjoyable and 100% accurate video. He's a pretty funny guy.
In regards to RDR2, once the glamour and awe of the graphics and animations wears off it really is irritating how restrictive and linear all the main missions are. It does painfully contrast with the openness of the open world exploration.
Noticed all the inconsistencies in the forced immersion as well, and the horse weapon thing is just fucking irritating.
All in all sums up why I think RDR2, while certainly a fun and well-crafted game, certainly does NOT deserve all the 9.5/10 and perfect 10 review scores it got. I would probably give it a 7.5/10, maybe 8/10 overall.
Really enjoyable and 100% accurate video. He's a pretty funny guy.
In regards to RDR2, once the glamour and awe of the graphics and animations wears off it really is irritating how restrictive and linear all the main missions are. It does painfully contrast with the openness of the open world exploration.
Noticed all the inconsistencies in the forced immersion as well, and the horse weapon thing is just fucking irritating.
All in all sums up why I think RDR2, while certainly a fun and well-crafted game, certainly does NOT deserve all the 9.5/10 and perfect 10 review scores it got. I would probably give it a 7.5/10, maybe 8/10 overall.
This sentence is both hilarious and really sad, because it truly does sum up how devs use shiny graphics and animations and production value to disguise poor gameplay / game design.
It's almost impossible to analysis or critique a AAA game on ResetERA that has so many fucking sales and 10/10 critic scores. It boils down to "its not outdated because it sold a lot" or "its really good because all the shitty game journos liked it". Everyone is distracted by its story (which is good!), and graphics (which are great!), and its open world (which is good!) , but I think once you think about the game as a whole just a tiny bit it just fucking falls apart. I noticed this with GTAV in 2013 and quickly became bored of the game due to its weird ass design of wanting to be open but linear. Rockstar Games are super overhyped so any discussion trying to bring it down is either met with disdain or confusion.
I watched the video. Many times. It's hilarious and 100% spot on. Rockstar needs to pick a road and stick with it.
Can I just say that the BO2 'choices' was honestly so under appreciated at the time? I did that same mission too, thinking that it was all just scripted... I felt like my mind had been blown when I discovered you could stop them in that mission. Cause most games would have made it obvious or much easier to not fail.
It's funny to hear you say that you find simplicity the problem, when that's exactly what I preferred about Red Dead Redemption (1). This game just isn't "fun" to me because there are way too many things to think about. Oh shit, my horse is dirty, oh shit, my gun is dirty, oh snap, a stranger quest - better get to it before it disappears, same with bounties, oh snap, my camp is running out of ammo and food.
Yet, with all that in mind, it also seems like none of it really matters. I put it to my friend like this, and I think this basically describes my feelings:
"When I watch movies like The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, and think "fuck I want to play a game like this" - they don't show them hunting for hours and making sure their buddies are stocked with food and medicine, they just ride around, be badass, shoot each other, and say cool shit."
That's what the first RDR did so well to me, and what this one is kind of failing at.
When we have reviewers/journalists in media for games like that ign person who got caught copying loads of other reviews. Something definitely needs to change review wise. Same for how games like fallout 76 the reviews still gave it decent reviews and scored gamed like darksiders 3 alot worse for nothing but scared of Bethesda.
Oh no I meant simple in terms of mission design, the rest of what you said I completely agree with it's the menial tasks which get boring so damned quick.
I think that some developers prioritize good graphics because it sells better. Obviosly good gameplay needs more planning and better designers, but even if R* could do a game that offers both, they know that using most of the resources on graphics, voice actors and world detail means more money for them. You release some good trailer with incredible visuals and you'll sell a lot of copies. The problem is that reviewers don't go into gameplay details and most of them only praise and praise the cinematic feeling bla bla instead of doing a good article on the. whole game.
One of the reviewers from Eurogamer Spain said that the gunplay feels like Max Payne. This is a fucking lie, but nobody will care, because he praised the game all the way like most reviewers, so the review is fine for most people.
I think it's a combo of ridonkulous production design and attention to detail being a distraction + the Rockstar pedigree and juggernaut of ad campaigns that they bring with new releases + milking the nostalgia of said pedigree of past titles and using that as a launch pad for "OMG NEW ROCKSTAR GAME! BEST EVER!!!" I swear its like a form of mass hypnosis wrt how the hype machine can warp perspectives.
On a similar note...I played the shit out of GTAV because of the world and characters, but that game kept me hooked in longer due to having more ways of creating fun and hijinx due to all the modern tools at your disposal ie weapons, vehicles etc. Despite that even with V I knew that rigid old school gameplay loop of 'go here get mission, convo with accompany npc follows on way to shootout or robbery, escape or drop off npc at home' felt entirely too dated for the leap in world complexity that was presented.
Like, I objectively recognize how incredible the scope and detail of RDR2 is presentation wise, but after the free roam novelty has worn off and you start to see the umpteenth snake bite victim alongside the road the veneer starts to dull a bit. Loved the hunting and pelt crafting component but aside from that there wasn't a whole lot that kept me sucked in to the open world gameplay at large once I completed the story, plus online is an obnoxious griefer's paradise. I wish this game hit me like the original did but no dice unfortunately. Then again Arthur Morgan is probably the strongest character+performance I've witnessed in a game to date so there's that :)
Bang on. To me it seems like someone noticed that people liked survival games so they decided that they'd chuck in a bunch of systems that at face value seem incredibly important, then forgot about fleshing them out, meaning that the player doesn't ever really have to engage in them. I know I didn't for the 30 odd hours I played anyway and I felt like there was absolutely no effect on my experience, so I was just left thinking why did this shit even make it into the game?
It's almost like most people don't even watch the video before posting in the thread! Craziness.
The video was great and echoed most of my exact complaints. I was SO excited for RDR2 and really wanted to like it, but at the end of the day, for me, it flubbed on so many big aspects that I found myself not really having fun about halfway through.
Props to Rockstar for making such a beautiful world and one of my favourite protagonists though. I can't take that away from them.
For me what feels outdated is the way the missions are limited. And you'll often get fail states if you don't follow exactly what was designed. But to tell the story they want I feel it's necessary. Frustrating at times, but necessary.
I saw the video start to finish when this thread was posted and then skimmed through it today, but I still don't remember/recall why he sits on a ball. It's a 30 min long video about RDR2 and its mechanics so its easy to miss a little tertiary (or irrelevant) detail like that even after watching the video.
One of the points Jakey makes that kind of gets overlooked in the discussion surrounding this video is the fact that even the so-called "emergent gameplay" scenarios are actually all identical, and really the only difference is 1) whether the player chooses to engage and 2) at what time they encounter this. It's not like systems collide with each other to create interesting narratives, everything is still dispensed in extremely curated, overly designed chunks but are peppered throughout the game. Like the guy you help with the snake bite that you later find in a town and he buys a gun for you. R* presents it like its this dynamic, emergent thing, but it's just yet another scripted encounter disguised as one. The illusion dissolves as soon as you realize nearly every single player had that exact same interaction at some point.
The concept of freedom and choice isn't a new idea, but the march of technology has given developers more tools and technical horsepower to support that kind of gameplay. It's kind of understood by all parties that a game with freedom of choice requires more technical acumen/horsepower to support all the alternate forms of play.
The concept of freedom and choice isn't a new idea, but the march of technology has given developers more tools and technical horsepower to support that kind of gameplay. It's kind of understood by all parties that a game with freedom of choice requires more technical acumen/horsepower to support all the alternate forms of play.
I watched the whole video and thought it was great but I totally forgot why he was on the ball, lol. Shows how well done the video is, I guess.
Yeah, exactly. Even the whole "cores" thing seems like an over complicated way to just have...health bars. No need to reinvent the wheel, especially with an overly complex and unnecessary alternative.
I've literally never crafted anything at a campfire, nor have I felt the need to get better guns (yet).
Naughty Dog's gameplay is below average. The others do an awesome job, though.