Why are Rockstar games rated so highly by reviewers?

[Bertylicious]

RDR is a pretty good game, to be fair. It's a big gaming world full of cowboy shit that has been generally well crafted. I mean to say; if you hold it up against Ride to Hell, a game a bloke in fedora said was terrible for many reasons, RDR is several orders of magnitude better.

It's all relative. So like growing up with a girl who lives next door, riding bikes in the woods and watching cartoons, sharing thoughts and jokes and friends at school, then going to university to live seperate lives but always consumed with an indescribable longing then returning home on a perfect white christmas to see her on her porch smoking a cigarette and she turns to you and smiles, and you suddenly realise what home really is and you live lives of perfect bliss and happiness till your only way to comprehend sadness is the thought of losing one another, then compared with that RDR is pretty shit.

 

[RicoADF]

I found the controls (on PS3) quite good myself, never had any issues at all. Yeah the horse doesn't turn on a dime but then again it is a massive animal, it's ability to turn felt right to me, for that matter the whole horse riding felt about correct. That said it's the setting, story and gunplay as others have said that made RDR so great.

 

[pvaglueman123]

Usually, if a game is super absorbing then you forget about bad controls. I think the lack of an autorun is a problem with the industry rather than Rockstar. Ask any Pokemon fan about Autorun for instance and they'll tell you it's sorely needed. In referance to the mission structure and stuff, i thnk that's because Rockstar are trying to please a lot of people. In the early game at least, they want you to get familiar with the controls and all that jazz before loosing you out on the rest of the world. For me though, the main story missions serve the open world gameplay rather than the open world gameplay serving the missions. They get you from place to place, teach you about mechanics and get you invested in the world. Then again, i'm not a developer, so yeah XD I can definitly see why it scored so highly though.

Bottom Line is, Rockstar are all about absorbing the player ito a big open world. If you can say that they did that, then they've done thier job.

 

[Nemusus]

Because if you sit down and take a close loose at one of their games, especially GTA V, and you rid yourself of bias, you can see quite easily that no other developer can touch Rockstar's ability to simply nail every minor detail of a living, breathing open-world game. i mean, honestly, find me a single game that has an open-world map that even comes CLOSE to comparing to GTA V, Red Dead Redemption, GTA V or even LA Noire. That's not to say the others are bad, it's just saying that Rockstar's worlds are just that incredible.

You may not fully enjoy the stories (Aside from LA Noire, I have enjoyed the stories from every Rockstar open-world game to date), and the game play may frustrate you (GTA IV devolved into a car chase only game for me), but you really can't deny the technical marvel of their games, and you really can't deny that no other game comes close to touching the amount of content and detail within their games.

Skyrim, Oblivion, Morrowind, The Witcher, Guild Wars 2....

I haven't played The Witcher or Guild Wars 2, but The Elder Scrolls series is ridiculously buggy and crash prone. Say what you will about Rockstar, at the very least their games aren't as bug-riddled and crash prone as Bethesda's (I still love Bethesda though). Also, Skyrim really isn't the best example of a great open world... It's got a few hubs where fun stuff happens, a large, mostly empty wilderness around said hubs, and the occaisional piss-weak dragon to delay your journey. Most of the dungeons on the way are fairly boring too, with like 3 themes to randomly swap between and the one of around 4 sets of bad guys to populate them. At least Rockstar games make it fun to get around; RDR had you going from city to city on big epic missions getting chased by guys with guns, and then letting you quick-travel between them so that you didn't have to watch the desert for 10 minutes between cities, and the GTA series has always been one of my favourite open world franchises because it's so fun to get around when you're trying to avoid a police helicopter in a hatchback. Oblivion and Morrowind let you quick-travel, sure, but Skyrim forces you to hike it out to each dungeon in the middle of nowhere before you can skip the tedious trek next time.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

CHOOSE ONE

1. Story heavy games are rated higher than mechanically robust games (or REAL games, if you're one of THOSE people).
2. The gaming journalism field is corrupt, and the scores are purchased.
3. The gaming journalism field is full of incompetents, and there was no need to purchase scores.
4. Every AAA game is rated on a 9-10 scale anyway, so 9.5 is actually average.
5. It's a viscerally exciting game that shows well in short bursts, and reviewers are pressed for time.
6. They gave it a 59 and the numbers were inverted.
7. They liked the game.

1 and 7, I choose you!

But yeah, they make fun games with at times insane attention to detail, that is why they rate quite highly.

Though I do agree that their control schemes suck. Tap X to sprint shouldn't be a thing anymore.

 

[viranimus]

I do not think rockstar makes BAD products. However I do feel that they end up shooting themselves in the foot with their design choices. They have this long and lauded history of taking good developmental concepts and building well manufactured products, but are completely oblivious to pacing and how repetitive and redundant their gameplay virtually without fail devolves into.

They work way too hard trying to build gigantic sandboxes when the truth is they build them TOO big and lack either the tools, capacity or talent to properly fill it, and instead fill it with kitty litter rather than real sand. For as massive of open worlds they are a developmental house that would benefit endlessly from adding a tad bit of linerarity, focus, and pacing that in turn keeps their open worlds vibrant and interesting and moves on long before they have the chance to become mundane.

 

[In Search of Username]

Short answer: Because they're really really good.

To answer some of your points: As to the controls, maybe it's just because I'm used to them having played Rockstar's games for so long, but they feel perfectly natural to me. As to the linearity of the missions, yeah I've heard other people make the same complaint, and it's a valid one, but tell me some open-world action adventure games that actually give you the kind of freedom you want within the missions. As to the writing, I don't get your point at all; video games writing is largely appallingly bad and Dan Houser is one of the few games writers I really respect. His games are largely satirical, so yeah, they have 'characters discussing issues', which I guess is awful in your mind? I don't see where you're coming from but you must realise that even if he's not to your taste, calling him one of the worst writers out there is absurd hyperbole with the low, low, incredibly low standards of your average video game's writing.

 

[stroopwafel]

I find Rockstar's games by and far really fun. Yeah the writing is satirical and over the top but it usually suits the style of game and I find it much preferable over some cheesy attempt at drama that typifies so many games. On top of that games like Max Payne 3 and GTA5 play really well and show a continuous evolution in gameplay mechanics when you played Rockstar's previous games. Everything is handled with care and attention to detail. Narrative structure and characters while often ridiculous atleast do something new or original. I didn't like any of the characters in GTA5 but the cynicism was often hilarious and the game had me entertained start to finish. I had the same with Max Payne 3.

I also think that Rockstar's latest games have always been their original vision, and that their 'cartoony' approach in previous games was due more to lack in technical possibilities when it comes to character expression and animation. They still maintain their trademark parody on popular culture(espescially in their GTA games) but it's delivered with a lot more 'weight' and severity simply b/c the technology allows it.

There is also a difference between a bad game and just not liking a game out of personal preference. For example Read Dead Redemption just didn't really 'click' with me for whatever reason, but I can still see why many consider it a good game. And Rockstar's games in general are of a level of quality that can't objectively be considered 'bad', even if they aren't your cup of tea. That's why, and deservedly so, they receive such generally high marks.

 

[endtherapture]

Because if you sit down and take a close loose at one of their games, especially GTA V, and you rid yourself of bias, you can see quite easily that no other developer can touch Rockstar's ability to simply nail every minor detail of a living, breathing open-world game. i mean, honestly, find me a single game that has an open-world map that even comes CLOSE to comparing to GTA V, Red Dead Redemption, GTA V or even LA Noire. That's not to say the others are bad, it's just saying that Rockstar's worlds are just that incredible.

You may not fully enjoy the stories (Aside from LA Noire, I have enjoyed the stories from every Rockstar open-world game to date), and the game play may frustrate you (GTA IV devolved into a car chase only game for me), but you really can't deny the technical marvel of their games, and you really can't deny that no other game comes close to touching the amount of content and detail within their games.

Skyrim, Oblivion, Morrowind, The Witcher, Guild Wars 2....

I haven't played The Witcher or Guild Wars 2, but The Elder Scrolls series is ridiculously buggy and crash prone. Say what you will about Rockstar, at the very least their games aren't as bug-riddled and crash prone as Bethesda's (I still love Bethesda though). Also, Skyrim really isn't the best example of a great open world... It's got a few hubs where fun stuff happens, a large, mostly empty wilderness around said hubs, and the occaisional piss-weak dragon to delay your journey. Most of the dungeons on the way are fairly boring too, with like 3 themes to randomly swap between and the one of around 4 sets of bad guys to populate them. At least Rockstar games make it fun to get around; RDR had you going from city to city on big epic missions getting chased by guys with guns, and then letting you quick-travel between them so that you didn't have to watch the desert for 10 minutes between cities, and the GTA series has always been one of my favourite open world franchises because it's so fun to get around when you're trying to avoid a police helicopter in a hatchback. Oblivion and Morrowind let you quick-travel, sure, but Skyrim forces you to hike it out to each dungeon in the middle of nowhere before you can skip the tedious trek next time.

Last time I played a GTA game it was 90% roads. Beyond the roads there were about 10 buildings you could enter, "characters" who you went to just to get quests, a few extremely basic shops, no loot or clutter. It's just a fairly lifeless world filled with AI prostitues you can kill.

And lol what Morrowind DOESN'T let you quick travel? Oblivion does and Skyrim does. It's clear you haven't played the game.

 

[drummond13]

Given that you haven't figured out how to stop your horse (there's a button that does EXACTLY that) and blame that on "poor controls" rather than you missing something, I think you have part of your answer right there.

Keep in mind it was rated extremely highly by the community as well as reviewers. Obviously there are always going to be people who disagree. There's no game, no matter how good, that doesn't have people who simply don't like it. Maybe it's just not your thing?

 

[Vivi22]

Huge detailed worlds that draw you in and make you want to explore.

I find this debatable. While the open worlds of games like GTA3 through to San Andreas were a massive achievement at the time because they'd never been done before, there's not a whole lot to do in them to be perfectly honest. There's very few places to go within the world, very few secrets to find that aren't tedious fetch quests, but those games could get by on it anyway due to the novelty of what they were doing and the main game being pretty solid. But ever since GTA4 I feel like Rockstar haven't really improved on what they were doing in the PS2 titles. The worlds are big and there's lots of stuff in them, but not a whole lot more for the player to do that's actually interesting.

These days I think a lot of other open world games do exploration a lot better than Rockstar does. Rockstar just doesn't give me much of a reason to explore besides exploring just for the sake of seeing new scenery. That's not all that engaging to me.

 

[SKBPinkie]

I agree with the OP.

The controls just kill any interest I have in those games. And Rockstar just flat out refuses to fix these problems even though people have been pointing out these flaws for years.

Nothing feels satisfying to pull off in their games. Even if something cool does happen, I don't feel responsible for it. It just feels like something that randomly happened while I was just present there.

And yeah, the linearity of the single player missions is fucking ridiculous. Talk about hand-holding. Just give me the final objective, and I'll get it done. Detailing every little step is just plain boring.

I get that pushing a button multiple times instead of just once can be physically exerting but I'm sure you can pull through.

(Yes that was sarcasm, stop being so fucking lazy).

Um, no. Fuck, no.

It isn't a matter of being lazy. It's straight-up terrible game design. The whole "tapping A to run" garbage is not physically exerting, it's just annoying. It feels like a QTE that never ends. Also, I can't control the camera when tapping A. The shoulder buttons exist for a reason.

Also, running should've been the default mode when you push the left stick all the way forward, with walking being a slight push on the stick.

Doing it the way Rockstar does adds absolutely nothing to the game; it's not immersive, FFS - if anything it breaks it.

 

[smithy_2045]

Because they're great games?

Seriously, they are. GTAV was about 70 hours of gameplay in which I never got bored once (although Online definitely has its issues).

 

[Flammablezeus]

I agree with the OP.

The controls just kill any interest I have in those games. And Rockstar just flat out refuses to fix these problems even though people have been pointing out these flaws for years.

Nothing feels satisfying to pull off in their games. Even if something cool does happen, I don't feel responsible for it. It just feels like something that randomly happened while I was just present there.

And yeah, the linearity of the single player missions is fucking ridiculous. Talk about hand-holding. Just give me the final objective, and I'll get it done. Detailing every little step is just plain boring.

I get that pushing a button multiple times instead of just once can be physically exerting but I'm sure you can pull through.

(Yes that was sarcasm, stop being so fucking lazy).

Um, no. Fuck, no.

It isn't a matter of being lazy. It's straight-up terrible game design. The whole "tapping A to run" garbage is not physically exerting, it's just annoying. It feels like a QTE that never ends. Also, I can't control the camera when tapping A. The shoulder buttons exist for a reason.

Also, running should've been the default mode when you push the left stick all the way forward, with walking being a slight push on the stick.

Doing it the way Rockstar does adds absolutely nothing to the game; it's not immersive, FFS - if anything it breaks it.

QTE that never ends? You realise you hold A to maintain your current speed, right? You only tap A to accelerate.

 

[SKBPinkie]

I agree with the OP.

The controls just kill any interest I have in those games. And Rockstar just flat out refuses to fix these problems even though people have been pointing out these flaws for years.

Nothing feels satisfying to pull off in their games. Even if something cool does happen, I don't feel responsible for it. It just feels like something that randomly happened while I was just present there.

And yeah, the linearity of the single player missions is fucking ridiculous. Talk about hand-holding. Just give me the final objective, and I'll get it done. Detailing every little step is just plain boring.

I get that pushing a button multiple times instead of just once can be physically exerting but I'm sure you can pull through.

(Yes that was sarcasm, stop being so fucking lazy).

Um, no. Fuck, no.

It isn't a matter of being lazy. It's straight-up terrible game design. The whole "tapping A to run" garbage is not physically exerting, it's just annoying. It feels like a QTE that never ends. Also, I can't control the camera when tapping A. The shoulder buttons exist for a reason.

Also, running should've been the default mode when you push the left stick all the way forward, with walking being a slight push on the stick.

Doing it the way Rockstar does adds absolutely nothing to the game; it's not immersive, FFS - if anything it breaks it.

QTE that never ends? You realise you hold A to maintain your current speed, right? You only tap A to accelerate.

Nope. Holding A only makes your character jog. Tapping is needed if you wanna sprint.

 

[Jon Shannow]

Is this another one of those "I didn't like a popular game so it must be some kind of conspiracy" threads?

 

[lord.jeff]

Is this another one of those "I didn't like a popular game so it must be some kind of conspiracy" threads?

That's what I'm thinking.

I thought Red Dead had some of the best horse controls I've played, I don't get your huge beef with it but to each their own.

 

[Evonisia]

Combination of distressingly high amount of detail in the world building, story which has too many words in it to criticise all of it and gameplay which is generally considered to be fun.

I don't rate Rockstar games all too highly, especially since GTA IV and V were massive slaps to my face, but I get why people (and by extension, reviewers) like them.