I bet GTA VI will feel like all the others and not be too innovative because why? Their player base is just degenerates. The game design is to fuck each other and the NPCs up while giving you the feeling that you can do anything without taking responsibility.
I’m not that gamer though. I like complicated thinking while smashing and grabbing. GTA doesn’t have that so I made up my own scenarios (RP before it was a thing with my friends in person typically while drinking) and played my own game when San Andreas was out. IV and V were just nice updates to the same game SA was.
The stories were bland at best. The missions are bland too. Makes sense how RP got popular because the game itself is just tropes and cliches and stuff we already see IRL. They just capitalized on it. Rockstar isn’t some amazing company they just show you what you already see but in a video game. It’s not creative, it’s just observant and opining.
RDR2 was a great story but that’s where that game ends. It’s another sandboxed GTA in old west times. Nothing special.
You can’t choose your destiny. You just sit in a sandbox trapped and stimulated by simple dopamine triggers without puzzles to work the mind and skill. Kind of like real life.
Overall it’s not a bad series. For what it is it is fun. To act out and be irresponsible in a vidya game is for sure fun. Maybe it’s even a work of art? I would agree. But it’s not something that is really innovative at this juncture. It’s not profitable.
It’s the same “innovativeness” as Starfield; it’s not pushing the boundaries of game design or anything but it’s a tried and tested strategy that clearly lots of people enjoy and it makes them a lot of money.
It’s not profitable? How? Rockstar is estimated to earn $8 billion from GTA VI… that seems lucrative to me?
I tend to agree with what you’re saying about the shallowness of the story and missions. GTA5 is beautiful in terms of landscape and visual design, but there’s not much substance there. I like to play once in a while just to kind of wander around and enjoy the scenery, but it isn’t very engaging to me beyond that. To each their own I suppose.
since Grand Theft Auto. The story missions were always designed to tutorialize the sandbox. They just started getting a lot of attention for being better stories than you usually get from AAA action games, especially in the ‘00s.
I can tell from these 6 words the only game with a semblance of sandbox elements you can think of is Minecraft.
Since GTA 3.
GTA is both a narrative series and a sandbox game series but is primarily a sandbox series. In every GTA game you can just do whatever you want once you get past the first 1 or 2 boxed-in missions. I think GTA V is the one that takes the longest to get you going.
I think the story of San Andreas was pretty nice. It’s very much scarface (in fact all the GTA’s were like this).
The online missions of GTA V were terrible IMO. They’re pretty degenerate yes. But the Singleplayer was nice. I also love the social commentary on US society. I really miss the roleplaying that people used to do in GTA:SA MP (third-party multiplayer mod) but of course rockstar had to go and kill it so they could sell their shark cards.
Echoing bermuda@beehaw.org. “Degenerates”? You mean a games series that pushed the boundaries when it was new, truly pushed what open world meant, and that it could be done with large, crowded cities technically as well. Sure if you play them nowadays the might not brush any strokes and feel flat but the GTA series has been defining a game for generations where “everybody” in that generation had played and been fond of. 1-2-3, San Andreas, and vice city and the ilks. There wasnt really any competitors to that when they were released.
I’m going to guess you are right that it won’t be too innovative. Story wise they have never been innovative, nor pretended to be. They have pushed the boundaries of open world in both engineering and social commentary/satire.
But calling several generations of gamers who grew up with this “degenerates”. Hard to take you seriously and your attitude can eff right off
Agreed. 3, SA, and VC were so successful that when similar original games came out, most people just called them “GTA clones.” Just like with Doom back in the 90s, where any FPS was a Doom clone.
Also are we just going to ignore the whole thing with GTAV where you had three characters with intertwined stories that you could switch between (mostly) at will? Multiple protagonists has been done, but not really like that, not in such a living breathing manner that they managed to pull off. Rockstar also manages to fill the world with many interesting characters for the story to play with, they manage to take really simple gameplay and make it engaging all the way through.
They also added the heists which were a pretty good way of adding more meaning to the old school mission structure they continue to use and while ultimately I don’t think it had they impact they wanted it did add some flavor and interest to the gameplay. I’m an absolute fiend for heist films and that was a lot of fun for me.
These games are characterized by superficial simplicity underlaid with surprising complexity to craft a smooth experience. LA Noire is a prime example of that kind of design where it becomes very obvious how much the game has to run like well oiled gearworks to function at all and have the cases work as narrative. (developed by Team Bondi, but with the help of a lot of the R* studios including North)
Also they manage to do all this without a second of it feeling like a cynical product, it’s clear the people doing this love the topic of pop culture crime, films, stories, legends and want to take the player along for a fun ride. I don’t know at this point, with everything that happened with GTAO, which mostly feels like a cynical product, if that’s the R* making GTAVI, I sure hope it is though.
That's not game design. It's the feel of a single mechanic. And honestly, there are so many open world games to play that have driving that feels good.
I mean, the guy had a few decent points. I definitely agree with you as well—my constant replaying of gta V and rdr2 go to show that I love rockstar games. And I’m a different gamer than this guy. I have the same approach to movies, too. I work in film and all my friends are super film snobs and I’m like, “oh shit, I really liked it.” Because the story is my bread and butter. Rdr2 was an incredible story. I’ve replayed the entire campaign three times and each time I still felt the story, felt the characters…it worked for me. However, what this guy said is also true. For “strategy” gamers, yeah, their system is super limited. I mean, for a replay their style is super limited. You have “choices” technically—you can be good or bad, say yes or no to helping people, you can find interesting items off them when you decide to be bad and kill them, or sometimes they’ll reward you with cool items if you decide to help. The open world has some secrets to uncover but…ultimately, there is one track for the story (even if you can be white hat or black hat), and the open world experience, you can only discover what’s set out for you. You can’t “create” an experience that isn’t placed for you to find or that you decide to do differently than their predetermined triggers and paths. Basically what I’m saying is your “choices” in the game only serve to limit your path if you make the decision to, say, not help Mary—that storyline is just gone. You get a few new pieces of dialogue. That’s it. It’s all funneling you to their predetermined path. And that can get boring for some people.
All this said, I fuckin love rdr2. I love just fucking around in the open world when I don’t feel like playing missions, I like trying to survive a Saint Denis shootout by holding up somewhere or refusing to run. Shit, I’m STILL playing rdr2. That doesn’t happen when the game is bad. But I also agree with what he’s saying. Being able to actually alter the game, with your creative input having a consistent logic you can manipulate, would turn this game from an 8.75 to a 10. As it stands, the only time your in-game decisions truly make a difference is when they wipe out a side story line opportunity—or if they happen to be the final decision or two in their predetermined story.
I opened the video thinking, “pfft. Fuck this dude, these are some of my favorite (and in my opinion the best) games of all time.” But after actually watching some of it, he had good points.
I really hate when “your choices matter” just means less game. I get that branching every choice is asking too much but it is a little easier when your scope is refined. Rdr series do what they do well and gta has been fun. If they upgrade their engine and game design, that would be amazing. If they don’t, I’ll settle for them stopping monetizing grinding.
I don't think any of what Jakey covers, which is very much how I felt playing it, has anything to do with choices that would affect the outcome of the story. It was more like I didn't feel like the game would let me think and handle things my way. Every story beat could still play out the same, but the missions should feel like I'm coming up with a way to do them rather than the game failing me for doing something fun that still ought to accomplish it. I'm thinking really hard about whether or not there are any story choices in MGSV, which he uses as an example, and I don't think there are, but that game will let you accomplish your mission by however you see fit in your Lego bucket.
Add comment