Rockstar has released only 1 game this generation
- Thread starter klik
- Start date
Well, as a consumer you get it all regardless so why do you care either way?
That said, as much as I love the games on that list, I'd personally take RDR2 if I only had the binary hypothetical you offer.
Sure, one release one, the other two but it is nitpicky.
Bethesda, yeah, I wonder why? Is it because they are greedy too? Maybe.
The scope of the game isn't the only reasons. Ubisoft released some big big games and still managed to have a big output this gen. If Rockstar decided to merge all their studio to work on RDR II instead of having others project (Max Payne, for exemple), it is their choice.
Games are taking longer and longer to develop. Unless you're Ubisoft and are okay with shelling out mediocre titles every near, quality takes longer to get right.
People are free to be as critical as they want, I'm just not buying it. Love it or hate it, RDR2 reflects the immense resources they chose to employ when developing the game and clearly, both the critical and commercial success of this game suggests they were correct to do so.
I'd love more games given my affinity for the developer but personally, I can't argue with the results.
No, most of them are. AAA games are becoming more ambitious across the board. That takes more resources and more time. Franchises that were yearly releases last gen like CoD or Assassins Creed have either dramatically increased the amount of people working on their games, or they've started to take gap years in between releases.
R* really isn't doing anything out of the ordinary. They make ambitious AAA games, and AAA games are becoming more ambitious across the board. So they are spending more time on each game (like everyone else).
You want them to stop doing this.
Well of course it is but regardless, RDR2 has the critical and commercial success to back up the notion that Rockstar made the right decision.
Most of them release a sequel after 7 years and send solely multiplayer contents in this time lapse?
There was a 5 year gap between GTAV and RDR2.
For comparison, there will probably be a 6 year gap between Fallout 4 and Starfield, there was a 4 year gap between Uncharted 4 and TLOU2, and there will be a 5 year gap between mainline Halo games.
Also, GTAV on current-gen consoles wasn't some slipshod port. It was vastly improved and the FPS mode was not only an entirely new feature but done remarkably well.
You know R is more like Activision and EA than ND and Bethesda? They have multiple studios named R but they aren't exactly a single studio as ND or Bethesda studio . They released 2 games, just imagine Activision or EA to have an idea of the proportion.
Dude...really who cares if they aren't s publisher when they could have the size to release multiple games as a publisher but they prefer sporadic release because it's less risky.
Last edited:
It's not comparable though. All of R* was working on RDR2. They didn't have multiple teams on different games.
That's the point. They deliberately choose it. You can't say it's not comparable but hey look to ND, look Bethesda studio, that's comparable. No it's not comparable neither to AAA.
Last edited:
Uh, what? Bethesda's literally a publisher with multiple studios too (BGS, Zenimax Online, id, Arkane, Machinegames, Tango).
Yet they released two of the best selling games of the generation on current consoles, even if one is just a re-release.
Taking more time with their games equals being shells of their former selves?
Do you want them to be like Bethesda, shoving out half baked broken ugly games?
I don't know what you're saying... Rockstar has consolidated its smaller teams and has them all working on a single game.
Again their games have become more ambitious and they needed the extra manpower and time to develop them. This is similar to a ton of other AAA devs who have either grown, or consolidated teams over the last generation.
R* is not a publisher. Comparing them to EA or Ubisoft is disingenuous.
They aren't just smalls team. It has multiple studio which worked in different IP in the past ps360 era. It has unified the R brand this generation but they were
like Ubisoft Vancouver, Shangai etc etc
There is a Bethesda Game Studios Montreal, Bethesda Game Studios Austin and Bethesda Game Studios Dallas.
So Naughty Dog has (thus far) only released two original games this entire generation and the second was essentially an expansion of the first in terms of tech and mechanics.
Given the sheer size and content offerings of RDR2, I'm not seeing the failing of Rockstar here.
Given the sheer size and content offerings of RDR2, I'm not seeing the failing of Rockstar here.
Yeah, a few more critically-acclaimed best-sellers and they'll be forced to close shop.
Ehm they released the best game of the generation last year.
Very pathetic.
And what a game it was. I still play RDR2: Online daily, though mostly because it's so much more enjoyable on PC, and plan to do another Campaign playthrough later on.
However it's a real shame they're not putting out more titles, especially compared to pre-GTAV Online :(
Hopefully they change their approach for next gen, but based on the massive financial and critical success both GTAV and RDR2 have had I don't see them changing their approach of Quality over Quantity.
However it's a real shame they're not putting out more titles, especially compared to pre-GTAV Online :(
Hopefully they change their approach for next gen, but based on the massive financial and critical success both GTAV and RDR2 have had I don't see them changing their approach of Quality over Quantity.
if you think that the only ambitious aspect of rdr2 was its graphics then I dont know what to even say. It's possibly the most well designed, polished open world ever. The hunting aspect alone could be spun off into its own game. The camp interactions are unlike anything I've seen before, there's just so many of them and they feel so natural and dynamic. The quality of the script is a MASSIVE improvement compared to earlier rockstar titles, even RDR 1. The acting of the main cast is 11/10. Even side missions have cinematic cutscenes and great voice acting unlike a lot of open world games like AC Odyssey or HZD. The main story alone has over 100 missions (exact number depends on the amount of honour missions the player unlocks) which makes it the longest rockstar main story ever, beating both GTA 4 and San Andreas, while also offering by far the most side content, not to mention all the unmarked smaller bits of content and unique interactions ON TOP OF all the minigames, a lot of which you can do with your camp mates, which further includes a bunch of unique interactions. The epilogues feel like an inbuilt expansion, rounding up the story in a ridiculously satisfying way, considerably more so than GTA 5 did.
And then there's the animation system, which admittedly is quite controversial, due its affect on the gameplay but in terms of the tech, its ridiculously impressive. And playing on PC now, I'm finding the gameplay to be really rather enjoyable as aiming feels perfect. The gunplay is actually really good. (tip for PC kb/m players: turn horse controls to "horse relative" to stop your horse from constantly spinning out).
The fact that it's got naughty dog level visuals IN AN OPEN WORLD game is honestly just the icing on the cake - all while it's sporting fully dynamic weather and time progression. Hell, the madlads even put a proper temperature mechanic in the game.
Would I like more R games? Yes, I mean, I've been playing their games since GTA 2 and they're probably my favorite developer. But even compared to RDR 1, which was one of my fav games of last gen, RDR 2 feels like a massive step up, and for me, the wait was more than worth it. It's not just better looking, it's way bigger and in every fiber of the game I can feel the passion and insane amount of work they put into. Naughty Dog also "only" has put out 1,5 games this gen so far - and no wonder. They aren't even making open world games, but the level of polish and quality ND and R* are aiming for simply requires more time than it did before. It's simple as that. I don't ever see them lowering their standards and ambition just to put out more games.
(And I really wish people didn't dismiss GTAO so handily, the amount of extra content the game has received over the years is absolutely insane. I get that this forum in general doesn't care for GTAO but sometimes I get the impression that people aren't aware just how much R has expanded it since release)
Seriously, even if you don't like the minute-to-minute gameplay, the open world of RDR2 is nothing short of miraculous; a living, breathing construct that operates entirely independent of your interactions.
Rockstar aren't consumers. They are a publisher determined to maximize profit and they've made the choice to focus on depth and content in a few, wildly popular games vs churn out tons of games.
I'm not sure where you're seeing 'weird fanboyism' in such a simple statement.
They take a long time to make awful games. RDR2 is the worst game of the gen in my eyes and also the most amount of money I spent on any game.
I really hope no one as looking at its success and thinking its the way forward.
I really hope no one as looking at its success and thinking its the way forward.
All of this, simply put is an example of GaaS and why devs are into it. (and why EA did what they did with Bioware/Anthem, even if their attempt was a big fail)
While the TC's post is technically true about pure "new game" output, I imagine if you said it to their devs, they would tell you they have been constantly busy developing GTA content for PS4/Xbox One the entire generation as an ongoing GaaS thing, which they've been selling both the game (which has basically NOT stopped charting since release AND sells mtx in a big way) and then they made a whole other game with a similar GaaS thing going for it that will probably carry into next gen as well.
So why not more games? Because they HAVE been busy supporting their service products, and they've highly (basically record breakingly) successfully printing money throughout, in particular with GTA5. Plus, theres probably something in the pipeline just waiting to be announced for when its closer to being done (aka Bully2)
While the TC's post is technically true about pure "new game" output, I imagine if you said it to their devs, they would tell you they have been constantly busy developing GTA content for PS4/Xbox One the entire generation as an ongoing GaaS thing, which they've been selling both the game (which has basically NOT stopped charting since release AND sells mtx in a big way) and then they made a whole other game with a similar GaaS thing going for it that will probably carry into next gen as well.
So why not more games? Because they HAVE been busy supporting their service products, and they've highly (basically record breakingly) successfully printing money throughout, in particular with GTA5. Plus, theres probably something in the pipeline just waiting to be announced for when its closer to being done (aka Bully2)
I didn't say they were struggling monetarily. They lost a lot of people when benzies left, along with benzies himself. He was the producer for most of rockstars games, including all GTA titles since 3.
He is given credit for getting rdr1 out the door.
Fair enough.
Hey, I'd love more of their games. At the very least give me Max Payne 4.
I hope they are, because it puts other open world games to shame
Fair enough but that's still pretty good, yes?
I'm assuming you've played a shit-ton of games this generation so if it made your Top Ten that's not too shabby.
I'm sure we can agree to disagree. I prefer something gamey like Spiderman.
For the people saying that Ubisoft is doing good at having more releases...that hasn't worked out too well if you heard their latest earnings report...where they literally said that they needed to release less games and give longer development times.
Also LOL at comparing one of the most detailed open world games ever in RDR2 to some linear narrative game. People are reaching.
Also LOL at comparing one of the most detailed open world games ever in RDR2 to some linear narrative game. People are reaching.
It is a very good game, I've never contested that. I just think it's sad that Rockstar's output has trickled down to 1 game per gen. What I was saying in another post is that I'll take 12 other very good - masterpiece level games over a single RDR 2 type game.
But yes, I recognize what a technical and storytelling achievement RDR 2 is, and I have played a TON of games this gen so it ranks lower due to the typical R* things I dislike, like boring combat, clunky locomotion (tap X to run needs to die in a hole), etc.