Why doesn't Rockstar cheap out on their games like Bethesda?
Whenever one of their games is released it's a cultural event. Their logo is a mark of quality and their technological prowess is recognized across the industry.
With Bethesda however the response is usually just "oh cool, another game exactly like Skyrim with vaguely improved visuals".
Does Rockstar actually care about their work?
>>321551918
>Fallout 4
>improved visuals
I've played it for over 100 hours and it's pretty good but every texture looks overly muddy and low quality, like they saw Fallout 3, went "shit everything is too sharp" and went the other direction.
Skyrim looks honestly better than it.
>>321551918
Rockstar biggest base isn't the nerdgamers like Bethesda.
Rockstar biggest base are the regular people that like to play games once in a while.
Just like Fifa, those kids play football outside and when it rains, they play fifa.
The coolkids play GTA, but after 2 months no more.
Are rhetorical questions worthy of their own threads?
That was a rhetorical question by the way.
>>321552475
So non-nerd gamers have higher standards basically?
>>321552475
Nah, GTA has online.
>>321551918
>Rockstar is a good game game companies but they did some shady shit in the past too, dont forgot that !!
>Bethesda on the other hand still needs to evolve,
>Skyrim was their real rise
>Rockstars rise was GTA 3, 10 years earlier
>>321553145
>they did some shady shit in the past too, dont forgot that !!
explain :)
>>321552702
Lower
Its the nerds that complain about the smallest details and hold everything under a microscope.
The thing good about R* games is that is statisfies the nerds and the cool kids at the same time.
Every new game of theirs has cool new features, clothing, things to do etc etc. shit the cool kids like.
But also better graphics, smoother engine, online shit to do etc. What makes the nerds happy
>>321553276
>RDR development hell
Thats pretty common in the gaming industry but they turned in EA for 1 year
>GTA4 PC port
Wtf
>Hot coffee case
Mad at modders and pc gamer although its their own fault
Rockstar is as bad as Bethesda to me after what they did to GTA's multiplayer and how much they've lied about it for the past two years.
>>321553565
what they do?
>>321553561
offcourse theyre not going to blame theirself. Their lawyers probably adviced them
>>321553561
>RDR development hell
>Giving a shit about the well-being of the development staff if the final product is good
I've heard bad things about the GTA IV port tho
>>321553276
Shark cards
Needing mission payouts to push shark cards
Inflating the in-game cost of new content to push shark cards
>>321553857
>needing
Nerfing
>>321553857
>being a business is bad
who cares man, the more money the make the better GTA VI will be. and don't assume it'll be online-focused or some shit. The Houser brothers won't do that.
>>321553695
The MP3 and GTA5 PC ports were amazing
Although the GTA4 PC port and no RDR for PC makes me still mad
>>321554010
Being a business isn't bad. Pulling petty bullshit to try and force microtransactions isn't bad. Every other company gets shit on for incompetent shit like this. Why is Rockstar the exception? They even killed the stock payouts in singleplayer, after having all but abandoned it
>>321553698
It was just unoptimised and >SecuROM, other than that it was better than the butchered 3d era games. It's a masterpiece of programming compared to Saints Row 2 though.
>>321554402
I don't mind microtransactions. Halo 5 DLC is free because of them
oh boy gotta save on making good online mechanics to make those flip flops work
>>321552475
>Bethesdas biggest base is nerds
Nigga pls. Fallout and Skyrim Scrolls are household names to all the black people who stole their ps3 as much as it is to those fags on NMA. Beth are just shit devs and people eat it up regardless.
>>321552475
>Rockstar biggest base are the regular people that like to play games once in a while.
Just like TES and Fallout are now. You don't get to 10+ million sales by appealing only to nerds.
>>321552475
>>321552702
>>321553449
Warm memo that nerd, casual, and other similar qualifiers have absolutely no benefit for game design. You guys are basically arguing whether or not SG guitars are better than Les Paul -- it's just the fucking shape.
>>321554830
>implying Les Pauls are not infinitely superior to muh edgy devil horns SGs
>implying Dean isn't a better manufacturer and Gibson doesn't just coast by on brand name
>>321551918
>Does Rockstar actually care about their work?
played Manhunt, a few old gta games and went 100% on the story mode of GTA V, Rockstar still care about a lot of things but has the terrible flaw of going full retard and autistic on a lot of things, which end up ruining the fun half of the time and leave a sour taste after playing it. GTA Online is really weak, a terrible mess when playing heist with randoms and the grinding is atrocious, especially for unlocking new modifications for your cars.
Bethesda on the other hand always go for the bare minimum, hoping the gameplay and exploration will make up for the rest. It's kinda like laziness unlike Rockstar where it's almost insulting.
Bethesda was once a quality company.
Mark my words, Rockstar will go to shit too. Just wait and see. It might take a while but it's going to happen.
>>321553145
Rockstar's big game was VC, then SA.
>>321554976
Dean a shit.
>>321554976
Gibson is just overpriced, not bad.
>>321555003
My fear is that with GTA Online they'll stop giving a fuck about SP. They've already disappointed me by staying in the 21st century for two GTAs, although I can understand the draw towards post-9/11, post-crash settings
I think the Houser brothers care enough to keep the games good 2bh
>>321555002
GTAO has never been more than a free roam TDM with hats.
..and always-on player blips on the minimap.
>>321554515
And rockstar has nothing to show for their use of microtransactions, save more retardedly priced items that encourage microtransactions.
It'd be a different story if the campaign actually had any kind of support but it doesnt
>>321551918
GTA V was a very cheap game. A great deal of amazing physics and capabilities were capped on its own engine. They demonstrated they know what to do with gunplay with a very shitty Max Payne game that was entertaining enough to be a tech demo, RDR was great, etc.. All their games until GTA V felt like technology demo's for everything they would put into that game, and then they simply didn't.
Rockstar was one of the last bastions of consistently good quality games but even they are faltering now.
>>321555272
I'm kind of tired of GTA and want something more serious.
It's a shame Max Payne 3 was a flop because it has the exact kind of realistic grittiness that is exciting in a crime game.
>>321554010
There is so much apologist crap in this post, it's amazing. The Houser brothers don't control shit, it's all Take Two.
>It won't all be for the online
It's not as if R* hasn't already givin up on SP to sell microtransactions for 3 reskinned cars every 2 months in the broken mess of GTAO. Oh wait, they did.
>>321555381
the difference is GTA V was a complete game at launch. if anything I hope they continue to avoid SP dlc and funnel the money towards future releases
>>321554976
>metal guitars
>superior to SGs or Les Pauls
Don't worry, son, you'll start to see things differently after high school.
>>321551918
in comparison to bethesda, yeah, rockstar is top-tier quality
though GTA IV & V haven't come close to SA
>>321555272
>My fear is that with GTA Online they'll stop giving a fuck about SP
that has already happened. R* has already said that they're not going to release single-player DLC for GTA V, only online shit
>>321555645
GTA IV makes up for any missing features in SA with higher quality detail and better written story
GTA V makes up for any missing features in SA with higher quality detail, much much better executed story, and actually bringing all of those features back
>>321555539
That money gets funneled to take 2, just like with an publisher agreement. Rockstar don't get shit. GTAO is pure profit for take two so when the next game comes out with more gutted shit to sell online, they can use all that extra money for marketing. None of it will ever see Rockstar's hands.
>>321555856
>story
>detail
none of this makes the endgame more fun. once you finish the story in IV & V, the game becomes very stale because the side missions and shit like that are tedious and mundane
>>321555539
>GTA V was a complete game at launch.
So we're RDR and GTA4, and both had stellar content post-launch without the use of microtransactions
GTAV printed money and has fuck all to show for it exception jew cards. Whatever integrity rockstar had as a dev is gone.
>>321556027
that's the point of GTA online, don't you get it?
>>321551918
New Midnight Club fucking WHEN?
>>321556097
I see your points but I can't give up on R* after just one fuck up
>>321555341
playing GTA:O is kinda like doing the epsilon missions of the story mode except the insult is not ironic this time.
>>321551918
all of Rockstars games are mods
>>321556103
>want to have fun with your friends with rocket launchers, helicopters, and tanks?
>then all of you need to grind the game for 100 hours!
fuck rockstar
>>321556391
you can just cheat though
>>321556480
my friends and I played at launch when all the cheating stuff wasn't well known in the community
we all dropped it by now and went back to M&B: Warband, like what we've been doing for 5 years now
>>321556697
well you can go back to GTA online if you don't want to cheat, just pay some money so you can get the extra features
>>321555645
SA is a great game.
IV is a great experience.The driving is better, there's a cover system, there's free aim from vehicles, incredible tech and physics, etc.If it had the RPG design of SA, including how that all affects NPCs and how there are territories, etc., there's no reason to imply that the story exhibition is any worse. The characters are less memorable, but it's fucking GTA. It's fun just to watch shit explode.
GTA online would be good if the matchmaking wasn't so incredibly awful
>>321556780
>just pay some money
>again
Good goy
>>321555071
>he doesn't remember the commercials for 3, which were relatively unheard of for video games
C'mon
>>321551918
>With Bethesda however the response is usually just "oh cool, another game exactly like Skyrim with vaguely improved visuals".
But people went apeshit with hype before Fallout 4
Why does Rockstar hate character creation?
>>321555814
wait is this really true?
I was expecting to get the GTA V GOTY edition in a year or so with all the expansionsfuck, man
>>321557441
the story is always written around the protag
the games are crime stories, not RPs
>>321555498
>>321555498
Who controls shit then
Im pretty sure Dan Houser writes all games and Leslie Benzies is the producer of r* most games
I doubt that take2 wants to intervene with them
Unlike 2k who doesnt come close to the revenue current rockstar does
But yeah marketing, microtransaction i can see how take2 controls that
>>321557646
Dan Houser is a writer who is told how much to write by take 2 and a figurehead, a familiar face touted out to lie when it suits take 2s purpose. See, "We're never making GTAV next gen" and the multitude of other lies for that. Leslie is a producer, Michaels story might as well be an alegory for how much imput a producer gets these days on the product.
>>321557326
I hadn't heard of III until a schoolmate brought it over.
I was probably too busy playing THPS2, The Sims, RCT, Pokemon Yellow, etc.
