Why do ubisoft get hate but rockstar get free pass for releasing same type of games?
- Thread starter B-Cell_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Mafia 2 is not open world. its linear shooter with open world elements like mafia 1. mafia 3 went complete open world and thus ruined.Ezekiel said:
Uh, Andromeda is most definitely open-world sandboxy thing. Multiple of them, but yeah.Ezekiel said:
If we wanted to get into the lineage of sandboxes though. I'd say Ultima (6 maybe, definitely 7) was the origin point I recall, which was back in 1993 or so. Ultima went on to become an MMO (which all are prettymuch open worldy) itself, and also is largely the predecessor to Elder Scrolls open world in RPGs.
Back in the early 2000s era of your PS2/Xbox, there was Morrowind, Grand Theft Auto 3 (Driver 2 was also open worldy back on the PS1, if my memory isn't failing me, though very limited by the tech), Final Fantasy 12, Need for Speed.
Various folks will bounce back and forth on Zelda being open world/sandboxy, and which entry qualifies. I'd definitely throw Ocarina in there
Take into account that I was never actually liked GTA games. However, I did complete Red Dead and many of the AC games, and platinum'd LA Noire and Assassins Creed 2...
With that out of the way, the main differences is: they don't saturate the market. Ubisoft released a different AC every year, sometimes more than one per year (Rogue and Unity). It doesn't help that Ubisoft took the AC formula and applied to everything: Watch Dogs is AC in the present and even Far Cry, The Division and The Crew has towers to unlock the minimap. In contrast, every numbered GTA game is treated like an event, not something that comes with the regularity of the summer solstice.
There is also the fact that, despite AC games being designed under the principle of: "throw everything and see what sticks", there is actually very little to advance the games. Every one of them seems like the first one with some minor improvements. Most of those elements they innovate feel rushed up and poorly implemented.
With that out of the way, the main differences is: they don't saturate the market. Ubisoft released a different AC every year, sometimes more than one per year (Rogue and Unity). It doesn't help that Ubisoft took the AC formula and applied to everything: Watch Dogs is AC in the present and even Far Cry, The Division and The Crew has towers to unlock the minimap. In contrast, every numbered GTA game is treated like an event, not something that comes with the regularity of the summer solstice.
There is also the fact that, despite AC games being designed under the principle of: "throw everything and see what sticks", there is actually very little to advance the games. Every one of them seems like the first one with some minor improvements. Most of those elements they innovate feel rushed up and poorly implemented.
I'll only say that Rockstar's games are certainly becoming increasingly over rated, like most other studios that have numerous sequels and rely on the same old formula. I think the main difference is what others have already mentioned.
- AC gets released every year, while GTA every what, five years now it seems. Rockstar's penchant for attention to detail needs to expand beyond window dressing though. I agree with B-Cell questioning why they always get a free pass, but they are still far ahead of their completion in terms of overall quantity/quality.
- AC gets released every year, while GTA every what, five years now it seems. Rockstar's penchant for attention to detail needs to expand beyond window dressing though. I agree with B-Cell questioning why they always get a free pass, but they are still far ahead of their completion in terms of overall quantity/quality.
Nah.hanselthecaretaker said:
Rockstar get the adulation they deserve. they don't just create fun sandbox action games, they create living universes that are really engrossing. When you play vice city you feel like your in the 80's. When you play SA you feel like you're in the 90's. When you play LA Noire, you feel like you are in the late 40s.
i remember when i first played GTA III on the ps2, that game owned my life for about 2 years lol. You'll seldom ever find a game developer who can so accurately get what it feels like to be in a city. i don't know how rockstar do it, but they the main series gets better and better at it each time.
The one thing i love about GTA game is that they bring something new to it with every game instead of just a quick remake. They'll do the same with Red Dead.
Yes Rockstar games are violent but they are a company that makes adult computer games. There is a large amount of more muture gamers who wants adult theme games and Rockstar is one of the only companies who provides them.
i think the scores speak for themselves.
dscross said:
They may get the feeling (presentation) down, but these are still supposed to be pieces of interactive entertainment. Excusing the lack of innovation just because they nail one aspect consistently doesn't do the consumer or developer any favors.
I want a GTA that's more self-authored vs listening to the same old inanely scripted drama, strung together by a linear course of action playing connect-the-map-icons.
I want to be able to have side "missions" like gaining leverage on the FIB and police by perhaps exposing their own corruption and turning it against them to better serve my own agenda.
I want to have my various choices dynamically affect the course of the game's world around me. For example, taking over buildings and businesses either legitimately through cunning negotiations like a tycoon or by force like a criminal, where my actions would resonate through the city. People would see my name in the papers or on the news and either be loving me or fearing me to various degrees depending on my actions.
I've never played though a GTA story more than once, because the random stuff you do afterwards has always been more interesting. If they engineered the game around that and gave it legitimate depth, not only could they save a ton of money over creating a one-off story, but they'd also have a revolutionary new game design that would pay for itself by several orders of magnitude.
But maybe we're just not there yet technically. It would seem that they'd be the ones to pioneer those advancements though.
You are expecting a lot tbh. Choice driven stories in an open world context have only just really started happening in gaming and the last GTA game was nearly 5 years ago. Don't think it makes them overrated just because you want more out of them. The fact that you expect them to pioneer that stuff says a lot about Rockstar in itself. I think they have innovated a lot from game to game. Who knows, they might have some of that stuff in GTA 6.hanselthecaretaker said:
Red Dead Redemption 2 will be amazing and you know it.
...because the problem isn't what type of game they release but the quality and frequency of their releases
Y'know, it just occurred to me reading that pretty much all of Rockstar's library could take place in the same universe, just separated by time and location.dscross said:
That said, playing devil's advocate, can't the same be said of Assassin's Creed? Granted, only played the first, but from what I've seen, they do seem to capture the essence of their respective eras quite well.
Did, did you even play any of those games? I don't think you did.dscross said:
GTA- A crime drama where you are stuck at the bottom and work your way to the top with quirky and interesting characters to meet (and often kill) along the way. There is an awful lot more to it than "Exploring and committing crimes."
RDR- The Feds send you in to capture several notorious outlaws whom were former gangmates. The story is about John Marston trying to redeem his past (Hence the "Redemption" part of the title) and bring in his former gangmates so he can live a peaceful life with his family. The only kidnapping John ever does is outside of the story missions when you want to be a jerk with the lasso.
Bully- You get sent to a boarding school and you fight AGAINST the bullies who hassle you from day one. Seriously, did no one in this thread actually PLAY the feckin' game?
Never played LA Noir, so i can't comment on that.
Why did you feel the need to preface that with such a condescending line? Was that necessary? You could have said you disagreed with my interpretation. I was paraphrasing, catching the essence of the games as I saw them - yes I know there's more to them but in essence, that's what happens in them. I wasn't writing an essay.demoman_chaos said:
I am a fan of Rockstar, I wasn't putting them down so I have no idea what you are (seemingly) getting so bent out of shape over, And yes I own all of the games I mentioned and have completed them all. You should play LA Noire if you haven't because it's excellent.
It was actually necessary, holds the whole thing together like the cheese of a cheeseburger.dscross said:
The fact you describe Bully as "You are a bully and beat people up" makes it quite clear you haven't actually played it. Even if you just play the first mission the game is pretty clear about you being at the bottom of the school food train.
No, it's not necessary to speak to anyone like that, even if you disagree with them. As to your point, I could have written something which would have pleased you more like 'teenage rebel who beats up and befriends a variety of school archetypes' but I was not being pedantic for the sake of writing a quick paragragh and shortening for someone who hasn't played it. While this is clearly a big deal for you, I'm not debating any more with you now while you are clearly in a bad mood about something and using that tone with me.demoman_chaos said:
It actually is, because what done as a comedic jab (referencing something that I can't quite put my finger on right now) has gotten you super flustered and it is making me laugh. Don't be thin-skinned on the internet lad, people will spot that and then let loose on you because of it.dscross said:
There is a difference between making a short summary and saying something that quite clearly wrong. It is like saying you play as Zelda trying to defeat Ganon in the LoZ games, it indicates that you know less than Jon Snow about the game and are just trying to piece together a plot synopsis from what your 8 year once said about it.