No. You should demand your employer to let you watch important videos such as this.
-
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Rockstar's Game Design is Outdated - NakeyJakey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
No. You should demand your employer to let you watch important videos such as this.
"living breathing world" I guess
Reviewers eat up detailed but vapid games
God I love NakeyJakey. He's spot on in every regard here as well. Usually I like that his content stays mostly away from this kind of analysis and criticism, but he did a great job.
I'll be honest, this clash of will shall we call it, with respect to what I did or wanted to do versus what the game wanted me to do, only occurred to me perhaps a handful or two times.
Once I sort of grasped how things worked within the confines of the games rules and how it constructs narrative or progression, the linearity of things stopped getting in the way, and stopped becoming an issue. Eg I learned to figure out when to loot and when not to, when I could let an NPC get ahead, and when I shouldn't, which things might end up being key landmarks or places to get to or not, when flanking might be a good option and when it might not, and so on. Once I understood that, and how the game approached mission design, I was able to better appreciate and enjoy it, though early on it did cause a fair amount of frustration.
Last edited:
Or maybe you need to realize that just b/c a game sells really well doesn't mean there is nothing wrong with it. I guess COD is the most amazing thing ever since it's like the best selling game every year. And everyone knows that Rockstar games are always overrated so don't even bring the accolades into this. That's why every game they put out gets beat by other games that play better for GOTY.
You can downplay and simplify every single game like this.
DOOM: shoot demons, collect ammo and key cards.
FIFA: kick ball.
Forza/GT: drive around in circles.
NBA: throw ball into a hoop.
AC: same as GTA/RDR go to marker location, watch cutscene, talk to NPC, do mission, go to the next marker, rinse and repeat.
Street Fighter / Mortal Kombat / any fighting game: mash buttons and beat up enemy on the over side of the screen.
I want to marry this video. Should be required viewing for game studios.
That said, I don't know why R* would change. The game sold a kabillion copies. Whether they can continue this cycle of regurgitating the same crap and having professional video gamer press hype it and the public eat it up each and every time remains to be seen. Who knows
That said, I don't know why R* would change. The game sold a kabillion copies. Whether they can continue this cycle of regurgitating the same crap and having professional video gamer press hype it and the public eat it up each and every time remains to be seen. Who knows
What do you mean after this? GTA4 was 10 years ago with a higher MC and that game is even less deserving of it than RDR 2 if you ask me.
Heh, probably the best way of putting how I feel after completing it. Would still give it a 8/10 just for the characters and story, but the actual gameplay is just bad.
I have a short memory, yes. GTAV has the same issues too, plus a worse story.
Giving it more thought, I can't even think of a modern open world game that is as commited to telling a narrative as vast as RDR 2. There used to be similiar games, like Mafia 1-2, but even that series decided to embrace the more "freeform" approach to its game design, replacing carefully scripted cinematic missions with a checklist of open world activities.
I cant emphasize how much I dislike the proposal of the video that rockstar should "commit" to either full linearity or embracing the open world in its mission design. They need to alleviate some of the issues with the strict fail states and allow a bit more player agency in critical moments, but the formula should stay as is, because they can actually tell a fucking incredible story which you can actually mainline without any of the open world fluff, but also for those who like messing around with the sandbox, there's tons of activities, random encounters and interactions.
I cant emphasize how much I dislike the proposal of the video that rockstar should "commit" to either full linearity or embracing the open world in its mission design. They need to alleviate some of the issues with the strict fail states and allow a bit more player agency in critical moments, but the formula should stay as is, because they can actually tell a fucking incredible story which you can actually mainline without any of the open world fluff, but also for those who like messing around with the sandbox, there's tons of activities, random encounters and interactions.
Yeah, it's more or less the same as my impressions when I played it last month.
It's an impressive and massive theme park, but shallow like a puddle.
It's an impressive and massive theme park, but shallow like a puddle.
OP
OP
They could absolutely tell a compelling story without a restrictive mission design. Most of the best story telling happens during cutscenes or conversations in the camp, not during the 100s of shootouts where you sit behind one cover popping head shots over and over again. New Vegas for example has an incredible story yet the mission design is open and varied. Even Wticher 3 gave you more freedom to accomplish objectives and that game's story is on par if not better than RDR2's.
This was a fantastic video. I haven't played RDR2 yet, but the part where he talks about trying to rob the people playing poker after getting a clue from a man he gave money to really surprised me with not only how dated it made the game look, but how insane it is that we have games like Minecraft and Breath of the Wild that have become extremely popular due to how willing the developers are when it comes to letting players solve problems how they want, yet Rockstar doesn't seem to get that appeal. Like he said at the end of the video, Rockstar seems unaware of what made them a fan favorite developer in the first place.
I'm trying not to go down the Metacritic rabbit hole with this game again, but it's pretty bizarre. RDR2 seems like a game that's doing a lot of the opposite of what people want in their sandbox games right now. Rockstar definitely feels like a company that gets a lot of free passes.
I'm trying not to go down the Metacritic rabbit hole with this game again, but it's pretty bizarre. RDR2 seems like a game that's doing a lot of the opposite of what people want in their sandbox games right now. Rockstar definitely feels like a company that gets a lot of free passes.
Again there's linearity and then there's Rockstar's version of it. I agree that in order for them to achieve a certain level of story telling they do need to restrict people to an extent but there's definitely room for a better balance between strict step by step gameplay and player agency.
Yup.
"Catch this guy over there"
"Not with your Lasso though lol"
Mission failed.
Yet that's exactly what you're saying.
Absolutely not.
R* seem to think they make games in a vacuum and the world just stops turning until their next game comes out.
Truth is the medium has move forward quite a bit since GTA V came out half a decade ago and R* have not caught up to that.
RDR2 plays like a very old game while looking like a game from the future.
The Witcher does and the it's even a branching narrative. It also gives you multiple options for how to tackle a lot of the missions.
That's because he doesn't want outdated and bad mission design.
This doesn't mean anything though. You're viewing design philosophies as design improvements and there's no real reason to see it that way other than personal preference.
I mean you just have to look at the "stealth" segments to realise just how limited and contrived the gameplay is. I don't even think the game actually has any stealth mechanics either. It just randomly pulls a random distraction "mechanic" out of thin air whenever the story calls for it.
I love Witcher 3 almost as much as RDR 2 but it suffers from largely the same problem, which is that in comparison to the rest of the game, the gameplay itself is quite simplistic. The branching narrative isn't something that manifests itself within the gameplay itself, that is almost always decided in the interactive cutsceneces (dialouge). Witcher 3 has extremely railroaded quest design too. It pales in comparison compared to something like New Vegas in that regard.
It can also be a way to say "I have played something similar back in 2010."
And that's bad because?
Not every game need to be revolutionary to be good. The Witcher 3 gameplay loop is heavily rooted in that time period as well. It does nothing really new, but everything the game attempts to do is done well. You can say the same thing with any number of games and sequels.
which is why I suggested relaxing the fail states. But to me it sounds like the video suggests that it should entirely change up its formula, which would be a pretty big mistake imo.
Ubisoft has decided to abandon the more guided missions in order to focus on the "emergent" gameplay (and this isn't just me making stuff up, they said it themselves: https://www.pcgamesn.com/ubisoft-emergent-gameplay-the-anecdote-factory ) and while it does create some pretty cool moments, there is no doubt that the general mission design has largely suffered for it.
Not one bit, no.
Being clunky and inconvenient is not a design philosophy.
Slow and deliberate sure, but RDR2 is not the only game that falls in that "philosophy" - and yeah, other (modern) games have done it better.
Sure but none of those other games are sitting at 97 MC with every second review staying it's 10/10 either. Even TW3 is in the lower 90s precisely because reviews docked it points for average combat/mission design.
So you're arguing that the game is bad or that the subjective opinions of a few people are wrong?
They do, but on the positive side it's amazing when games are bringing us all together :D
Except us...
First videi i watched from this guy and im going to subscribe to his channel. The lego comparison was incredibly smart not only becauseit was a comparison and thats it but the way he tried to explain how that is important and how thibngs couod be tweaked in the main missions to still follow the rules of the open world.
The game is restrictive it doesn't mean it is outdated. That implies "all" games should fit a specific criteria and its horrible if you don't like it. This especially rings true if you are pointing to another game/franchise as an example of how it works better. What you are actually doing is treating a preference/opinion as if it is fact. The best way to tell a specific story is to put restrictions on open experiences. I understand why but then I agree with most that Rockstar went a bit far in that regard.
I do agree they should ease up on fail states and have a sneaky suspicion all the slowdown and clunkiness we experienced in single player was to either to provide uniform experience in multiplayer or that the single player game is actually locked into the constraints of the multiplayer code because pf prioritization and they didn't have a choice.
Precisely why I'm waiting for a sale before getting the game.
I want to experience it, but at the same time I know what to expect from modern day R* in terms of player freedom to tackle missions and side content.
The game is a milestone in terms of spectacle and production value, but in terms of open world, open ended gameplay design it doesn't seem to do much from what I've seen.
I want to experience it, but at the same time I know what to expect from modern day R* in terms of player freedom to tackle missions and side content.
The game is a milestone in terms of spectacle and production value, but in terms of open world, open ended gameplay design it doesn't seem to do much from what I've seen.
A really good video, that embodies all the reasons why I believe RDR2 is not going to age well.
I remember doing a mission where I had to sneak into an oil factory. Instead of shitting myself off with the subpar stealth mechanics I failed the mission deliberately so i could skip the section. That's how much I find this 'realistic' gameplay to be unenjoyable.
That's exactly what I meant.
Different games try to do different things and one philosophy is not inherently better than the other. BOTW game design would be awful if you wanted to make a really fleshed out story. You could see how that would've worked if you look at AC: Odyssey. The story felt disjointed and not really fleshed out because of its design choices.
I think you should watch the video this thread is about.
This is not about "philosophy".
It's not about fitting a criteria, R* can make their own stuff that's unique without fitting a criteria. They can also make a narrative game with linear missions. Uncharted has totally linear missions with heavy emphasis on narrative, but despite that it has given players more and more options in regular gameplay. Majority of RDR2's story and narrative is told through cutscenes and conversations so why does the gameplay need to be restrictive?
Point being they can keep their linear design but they don't have to disregard evolution made in games made for player benefit in the past 5-8 years to achieve that. There is a reason why those old mechanics don't exist anymore in the industry outside of R*, not because every game is trying to copy each other but it's because games have evolved past it while R* games haven't and that by the very definition makes this game...as the video says...outdated.
So I suggest people actually watch the video because it's so obvious to tell who's actually seen it and who hasn't. Like that dude who said "R* has made the same kind of game for almost 20 years" has obviously not seen the video. Because for one the video clearly talks about how GTA3 actually provided more player agency and secondly, by that very fact that it's the same design as 20 years ago it makes the design in RDR2 outdated unless you want to believe that the design from 20 years ago was so perfect that it doesn't need changes even today.
Point being they can keep their linear design but they don't have to disregard evolution made in games made for player benefit in the past 5-8 years to achieve that. There is a reason why those old mechanics don't exist anymore in the industry outside of R*, not because every game is trying to copy each other but it's because games have evolved past it while R* games haven't and that by the very definition makes this game...as the video says...outdated.
So I suggest people actually watch the video because it's so obvious to tell who's actually seen it and who hasn't. Like that dude who said "R* has made the same kind of game for almost 20 years" has obviously not seen the video. Because for one the video clearly talks about how GTA3 actually provided more player agency and secondly, by that very fact that it's the same design as 20 years ago it makes the design in RDR2 outdated unless you want to believe that the design from 20 years ago was so perfect that it doesn't need changes even today.
Last edited:
Of course it is, they give you so much freedom to interact with everyone, even create system to talk to everyone in the world and when there is a mission you can't go few meters away from the intended target, or can't do anything else if it's not intended by the mission system otherwise it gives you a failed mission. They really need to improve on that, to make their games even better.
He's clearly talking about the restrictiveness of R* level design compared to a more freeform type of level design.
Restrictiveness in order to get the player through a particular action against allowing the player to solve an issue in his own way are opposite design philosophy.
I personally like the more defined scope of the story missions against the backdrop of an open world.
The one thing most open world games get wrong is chaining together a cogent narrative across the open world environment and pacing eventually suffers.
Hell, Bethesda changing their approach with FO4 was a direct response to this phenomenon.
I think RDR2 is an amazingly designed playground with a superb story and the structured missions were some of the highlights.
Is it perfect? No but it's damn close.
The one thing most open world games get wrong is chaining together a cogent narrative across the open world environment and pacing eventually suffers.
Hell, Bethesda changing their approach with FO4 was a direct response to this phenomenon.
I think RDR2 is an amazingly designed playground with a superb story and the structured missions were some of the highlights.
Is it perfect? No but it's damn close.