Support NeoGAF

[jayj]

I'm sure I'm not the only person here to say this, but whenever I play a modern Rockstar game like GTAV and RDR2, playing the missions in them feels more like I am playing a game centered around trying to do scenes as an actor in a movie than anything else. I say that because there is so little freedom in them, they basically insta-fail you for deviating from playing them exactly how the developer wanted you to play them. The end result, IMO, is a game where the missions feel like you're an actor doing scenes for a movie. They demand that you absolutely must stick to the script, most attempts to improvise are met with what feels like the director calling cut and resetting you to the start of the scene and making you do it again, with the game essentially telling you "stick to the script this time."

IMO this kinda ruined the feel of playing these games. I never really felt like I was just playing a mission the way I wanted to, I was just constantly getting railroaded from one action scene to the other, doing as told, as expected, getting punished any time I tried to be creative or have some fun with them. I am bringing this up now because every time I try to play these games again, they simply feel really laborious, and I am literally just doing most things exactly how I had to do them before, making any new playthroughs feel like there is nothing new to see.

 

[Guilty_AI]

i agree

 

[64bitmodels]

we gotta go back to the way GTA3 did things.

 

[arkhamguy123]

GTA6 will alleviate this

There were too many complaints after RDR2 from the fans and critics. I think they’ll address it

 

[kiphalfton]

Never noticed, but then again any sort of deviation IRL and you get slapped hard.

 

[semiconscious]

I'm sure I'm not the only person here to say this, but whenever I play a modern Rockstar game like GTAV and RDR2, playing the missions in them feels more like I am playing a game centered around trying to do scenes as an actor in a movie than anything else. I say that because there is so little freedom in them, they basically insta-fail you for deviating from playing them exactly how the developer wanted you to play them. The end result, IMO, is a game where the missions feel like you're an actor doing scenes for a movie. They demand that you absolutely must stick to the script, most attempts to improvise are met with what feels like the director calling cut and resetting you to the start of the scene and making you do it again, with the game essentially telling you "stick to the script this time."...

this's a very good description, op. & it's why my favorite parts of both red dead redemption games, which i love, aren't the missions...

 

[Tarin02543]

Invisible walls or instant death zones kill open worlds

 

[Dick Jones]

I remember in GTAIII I drove a car parked in Chinatown to 8ball and planted a bomb. Set it and started the mission and the lad I chased ran to the car and

If I thought outside the box in GTAV or Red Dead, the console would implode

 

[March Climber]

feels more like I am playing a game centered around trying to do scenes as an actor in a movie than anything else.

I think OP might have found the perfect way to describe modern day Rockstar game mission design. You're playing as close as possible to the script and scene, like you're an actor in a play or movie. You're only allowed very, very minor improvisation. Any time you deviate from what the 'director' wants, you get this:

 

[arkhamguy123]

I think OP might have found the perfect way to describe modern day Rockstar game mission design. You're playing as close as possible to the script and scene, like you're an actor in a play or movie. You're only allowed very, very minor improvisation. Any time you deviate from what the 'director' wants, you get this:

I think its intentional and the flip side is their best missions are so bombastic and the production values so high if you're spectating its like watching someone play a prestige streaming show or a decent movie

For example my dad is an old boomer, hates video games by and large, loved to watch me play gta v missions back in the day, he found them funny and exciting. Usually he can't tolerate 3 seconds of any other game

 

[lh032]

yea alot of us knew that long ago, hope they improve it in gta 6

 

[March Climber]

I think its intentional and the flip side is their best missions are so bombastic and the production values so high if you're spectating its like watching someone play a prestige streaming show or a decent movie

For example my dad is an old boomer, hates video games by and large, loved to watch me play gta v missions back in the day, he found them funny and exciting. Usually he can't tolerate 3 seconds of any other game

I have accepted this to be the case since RDR 1. My only issue is when it's too annoyingly aggressive with where you are allowed to be(like a few missions in RDR 2 where it would punish you for being out of a tiny acceptable zone while following someone). I do understand both sides of the matter, and I also understand that this way of mission design is at direct odds with the open world freedom of out-of-mission design.

While saying this, I don't think Rockstar should just stagnate when it comes to this. There should always be a way for them to evolve their mission design instead of doubling down on it further. I honestly feel that one of the few reasons they haven't been called out on this more, is because they don't release games often enough anymore for people to feel burnt out on this style of design.

Edit: I will be more forgiving of the double down as long as their loading times and checkpointing match the standards of most loading times and checkpointing of this gen. That was one of the major annoyances of failing a mission.

 

[64bitmodels]

I think its intentional and the flip side is their best missions are so bombastic and the production values so high if you're spectating its like watching someone play a prestige streaming show or a decent movie

For example my dad is an old boomer, hates video games by and large, loved to watch me play gta v missions back in the day, he found them funny and exciting. Usually he can't tolerate 3 seconds of any other game

they should be making games for gamers not old crotchety boomers who hate video games. Your dad will never be a gamer, sorry.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Great point, OP.

It's a very valid criticism.

It's something I think Watchdogs 2 did much better.

 

[Soodanim]

I've always been of the opinion that GTA went downhill after San Andreas, and this is one of the reasons why. I've picked up the trilogy multiple times since the PS2 releases, but I've had maybe a couple hours across attempts at getting back into 4 and 5 I never even finished once because it bored me too much.

Rockstar dropped fun in favour of serious with sim-like tendencies.

 

[Guilty_AI]

we gotta go back to the way GTA3 did things.

*GTA2

 

[64bitmodels]

*GTA2

if you're gonna go that far you may as well play hotline miami

 

[StueyDuck]

I prefer extremely reactive, emergent open world design with fantastically scripted and hand crafted singular mission moments designed to excite the player more than bland painted back drop open world with absolutely 0 interactivity where instead of shooting the man from this rock, I can shoot the man from that tree.

The beauty of Rockstar games is that you get both and I honestly find it so weird that people can't tell the difference between a single player campaign experience and the open world exploration experience.

People seem to just want games where you do far cry camps, 12 guys walk around, you tag them with zoom magic glasses, then you can either stealth or not stealth them, then you enter the compound and the semi broken ai is standing in the room janked out and facing the wall and the camera zooms in and you just have a barage of dialog and exposition thrown at you for half an hour, choose one of 3 options, have more exposition and then magically get item in inventory to return... because yes, most these games just Mainly do fetch quests

 

[yansolo]

i remember failing a couple of missions in red dead 2 because i was looting and took too long

 

[arkhamguy123]

they should be making games for gamers not old crotchety boomers who hate video games. Your dad will never be a gamer, sorry.

I was… just explaining why I think they make it like that….

I don’t think I said it’s the best game design the industry have ever seen did I?

 

[DaleinCalgary]

Rockstar doesn't make modern games, just remakes.

 

[Guilty_AI]

if you're gonna go that far you may as well play hotline miami

I mean GTA2 had generally much more freedom of play than 3. Its not because of the top down camera.

 

[EDMIX]

GTA6 will alleviate this

There were too many complaints after RDR2 from the fans and critics. I think they’ll address it

True.

With how wild the GTA series is, I believe we'll see them have more freedom and player agency as they do listen to feedback.

So from GTA IV being limited in certain aspects, GTA V returns to a lot of those (land, air and sea) ideas regarding missions, so after RDR2, I think they will address what people where saying about some of those designs, features etc.

i remember failing a couple of missions in red dead 2 because i was looting and took too long

same.

Its almost as if the fucking game forgot its point was that you are a bad guy lol

 

[Holammer]

I hate it when games lead the player by the nose, and yes GTAV is a serious offender.
There is a "scene" [and the quotation marks are very sarcastic] in Half-Life 2 Episode 2 where a rocket is launched, I remember feeling so railroaded, I refused to play along and started climbing the shelves and other stuff in the room while the goofy NPCs wait with bated breath for the hero to press the launch button.
It looked so silly when they stood there, looked and head tracked as I bounced around the room. So I started doing ook sounds and laughing my ass off while having the time of my life. Emergent gameplay at its finest.

 

[Jakk]

I really hope they won't listen to these complaints and won't change their mission design when it comes to the main storyline.

 

[Scotty W]

Gamers

 

[Jinzo Prime]

I still have not finished RDR2 for this very reason. What's the point of an open-world where you aren't allowed to experiment?

 

[Phase]

Gameplay has taken a backseat to exposition dumping and dialogue in many modern games. To be fair I think RDR2 actually has fairly good writing so it didn't bother me much.

Devs should strive for the "show, don't tell" approach. It's always more engaging. The story should develop through gameplay imo.

 

[Raonak]

R* games haven't been enjoyable to play since the PS2 era.

They create such deep worlds but the game plays like ass.

 

[KimDongHwan]

 

[Shubh_C63]

IMO this kinda ruined the feel of playing these games.

These games, by far has cultivated their image themselves as less "gamey" and be more movie games. I think our expectations from a RDR2 was pretty much set about a cinematic ridealong.

I liked hand holding and sticking to a directors vision to get the maximum out of that scene. Even then GTA5 absolutely bored the crap out of me.

 

[SimTourist]

I really hope they won't listen to these complaints and won't change their mission design when it comes to the main storyline.

I agree, every mission has a carefully crafted feel and is on par with linear single player game in terms of scope and ambition, direction and cinematic presentation. In most open world games there are maybe 2-3 standout missions with the rest being lazy entertain yourself missions.

 

[Hawke502]

People seem to just want games where you do far cry camps, 12 guys walk around, you tag them with zoom magic glasses, then you can either stealth or not stealth them, then you enter the compound and the semi broken ai is standing in the room janked out and facing the wall and the camera zooms in and you just have a barage of dialog and exposition thrown at you for half an hour, choose one of 3 options, have more exposition and then magically get item in inventory to return... because yes, most these games just Mainly do fetch quests

Well, at this point i actually expect more game like Botw, where you're rewarded for being creative, or maybe more open world games adopting immersive sim elements.

 

[Majukun]

It's not new to Rockstar, I the first rdr there were "missions" that were literally, go to accept them, move from point a to b while a gameplay cutscene of people talking happens, talk to someone at point b. "mission accomplished"

 

[StueyDuck]

Well, at this point i actually expect more game like Botw, where you're rewarded for being creative, or maybe more open world games adopting immersive sim elements.

I really hope the next gta isn't just about letting you cut down trees and sticking them together. Let the kids be creative in minecraft. GTA is all about the open world, and always has been since its initial inception even in 2D, look at how absolutely no one can compete in that department, saints woke bombed so hard the studio is dead.

RDR2 is still the absolute pinnacle of open world design and exploration, nothing feels close to as emergent and interactive the world's that Rockstar create. People famously play their games for 100s of hours without even touching the campaign.

 

[March Climber]

I prefer extremely reactive, emergent open world design with fantastically scripted and hand crafted singular mission moments designed to excite the player more than bland painted back drop open world with absolutely 0 interactivity where instead of shooting the man from this rock, I can shoot the man from that tree.

The beauty of Rockstar games is that you get both and I honestly find it so weird that people can't tell the difference between a single player campaign experience and the open world exploration experience.

People seem to just want games where you do far cry camps, 12 guys walk around, you tag them with zoom magic glasses, then you can either stealth or not stealth them, then you enter the compound and the semi broken ai is standing in the room janked out and facing the wall and the camera zooms in and you just have a barage of dialog and exposition thrown at you for half an hour, choose one of 3 options, have more exposition and then magically get item in inventory to return... because yes, most these games just Mainly do fetch quests

An Ubisoft game should not have been your go-to for a counterpoint. No one here is going to bring up an Ubisoft game to make a solid counterpoint for Rockstar mission design.

I prefer extremely reactive, emergent open world design with fantastically scripted and hand crafted singular mission moments.

The beauty of Rockstar games is that you get both and I honestly find it so weird that people can't tell the difference between a single player campaign experience and the open world exploration experience.

People here just want to know why the two cannot be combined more cohesively. This thread is about Rockstar’s mission design, not their open world.

You say that they have emergent open worlds, yet why can’t they have better emergent mission design? Why do they still have a hard time accounting for player deviations during missions? Why do other games account for this and adapt to it, yet Rockstar stays absolutely rigid? This is Rockstar we’re talking about, with Rockstar’s money, developers, and resources.

Eventually, they need to evolve the mission standard and/or formula. I think people will only realize this once another I.P. tries to do what they do and eventually end up doing it better.

If I were a betting man, I would say that sometime in the future, the Hitman team could pull off what I’m suggesting if they made an open world Hitman game set in one city. Imagine it, with the already emergent Hitman missions it has, but additionally a fully open, interactable environment with cinematic storytelling based on what you do, rather than what the game is forcing you to do.

It would even be a game that would make for a great conversational piece, as people would be asking each other how they completed ____ mission, or met ____ person, how they saw the cutscenes, and each gamer would have almost entirely different answers.

Don’t you think Rockstar should be the first in line doing this?

 

[StueyDuck]

An Ubisoft game should not have been your go-to for a counterpoint. No one here is going to bring up an Ubisoft game to make a solid counterpoint for Rockstar mission design.


People here just want to know why the two cannot be combined more cohesively. This thread is about Rockstar’s mission design, not their open world.

You say that they have emergent open worlds, yet why can’t they have better emergent mission design? Why do they still have a hard time accounting for player deviations during missions? Why do other games account for this and adapt to it, yet Rockstar stays absolutely rigid? This is Rockstar we’re talking about, with Rockstar’s money, developers, and resources.

Eventually, they need to evolve the mission standard and/or formula. I think people will only realize this once another I.P. tries to do what they do and eventually end up doing it better.

If I were a betting man, I would say that sometime in the future, the Hitman team could pull off what I’m suggesting if they made an open world Hitman game set in one city. Imagine it, with the already emergent Hitman missions it has, but additionally a fully open, interactable environment with cinematic storytelling based on what you do, rather than what the game is forcing you to do.

It would even be a game that would make for a great conversational piece, as people would be asking each other how they completed ____ mission, or met ____ person, how they saw the cutscenes, and each gamer would have almost entirely different answers.

Don’t you think Rockstar should be the first in line doing this?

No. Because Rockstar setpieces wouldn't make sense if the player wants to play jumpy jumps at the side while the police are raiding the bank and you have to escape with the crew Pronto. It makes logical sense that you need to get to that vehicle asap.

Again the two don't need to get married because when they do the open world ultimately suffers from it, no game has yet to do it because it can't be interestingly done. Also the whole idea of "player deviation" is a farce to begin with, people are like "Why can't I run to the side of the house now" , the answer should be Why do you care you have a whole fucking unlimited timed open world experience where you can explore that whole house top to bottom but because of the mission named "don't go left of the house" you couldn't go left of the house, it's the worst game ever

Gamers just need to use their brains a little. I don't want to play scripted gameplay today, well then don't walk into the highlighted "this is a scripted mission" marker that takes up 0.00000025% space on the open world map.

I don't want breath of the nico where there 100 gang hideouts that give your cocaine orbs that you take to a man that gives you more armor, 999 hidden packages that you do the same copy paste content over and over and over with an empty flat bland boring open world

 

[Perrott]

Are you saying that GTA V and RDR2 are cinema? Because they are

 

[Perrott]

I still have not finished RDR2 for this very reason. What's the point of an open-world where you aren't allowed to experiment?

Why the heck would you want to try whatever bullshit that crossed your mind during a mission when you literally have Dutch, the boss of the gang, telling you exactly what to do?

It's your fault that you can't seem to follow simple orders in a story-driven game.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

That’s a very apt analogy, never thought of it like that tbh.

I agree, but as the free roam gameplay allows you such an open and diverse toolset I don’t really mind. Would definitely be cool to have more freedom within missions though.

 

[March Climber]

I don't want breath of the nico where there 100 gang hideouts that give your cocaine orbs that you take to a man that gives you more armor, 999 hidden packages that you do the same copy paste content over and over and over with an empty flat bland boring open world

You keep ranting about something I’m not even requesting nor bringing into the conversation.

No. Because Rockstar setpieces wouldn't make sense if the player wants to play jumpy jumps at the side while the police are raiding the bank and you have to escape with the crew Pronto. It makes logical sense that you need to get to that vehicle asap.

The logical next step would be to account for potential deviations(and no I don’t mean the very tiny ones like jumpy jumps at the side, cmon now). For example, in a mission you’re having to do a train heist. During the mission, you happen to get into a gunfight. The gunfight unfortunately makes you late for the train because you were slightly slower in taking them out. In a typical Rockstar game this ends in a mission failure. In the new version, you or your companion(s) are aware that the train is stopping at the next town and this is commented on while the marker updates, so you the player decide to take a shortcut there to catch up with the train. The train robbery ends up as a more difficult mission now that you’re improvising, but it’s still possible(and that’s the point).Now do you see what I mean?

Again the two don't need to get married because when they do the open world ultimately suffers from it, no game has yet to do it because it can't be interestingly done. Also the whole idea of "player deviation" is a farce to begin with, people are like "Why can't I run to the side of the house now" , the answer should be Why do you care you have a whole fucking unlimited timed open world experience where you can explore that whole house top to bottom but because of the mission named "don't go left of the house" you couldn't go left of the house, it's the worst game ever

No one is saying any of this is the worst game ever. It is a valid complaint of a developer that makes great games. You’re being so defensive that you’re blinding yourself to any criticism of these games. I’d argue that emergent RPGs are coming closer and closer to solving the issues you’re mentioning(and in terms of non-RPGs you still didn’t even bother acknowledging Hitman for all the good those newer games have done with emergent mission design).

Gamers just need to use their brains a little. I don't want to play scripted gameplay today, well then don't walk into the highlighted "this is a scripted mission" marker that takes up 0.00000025% space on the open world map.

Gaming has slowly been evolving and I want Rockstar to continue to be a pioneer of this evolution rather than having a very archaic and apparent achilles heel and being stuck in their ways in one major aspect of their games.

 

[StueyDuck]

You keep ranting about something I’m not even requesting nor bringing into the conversation.


The logical next step would be to account for potential deviations(and no I don’t mean the very tiny ones like jumpy jumps at the side, cmon now). For example, in a mission you’re having to do a train heist. During the mission, you happen to get into a gunfight. The gunfight unfortunately makes you late for the train because you were slightly slower in taking them out. In a typical Rockstar game this ends in a mission failure. In the new version, you or your companion(s) are aware that the train is stopping at the next town and this is commented on while the marker updates, so you the player decide to take a shortcut there to catch up with the train. The train robbery ends up as a more difficult mission now that you’re improvising, but it’s still possible(and that’s the point).Now do you see what I mean?

No one is saying any of this is the worst game ever. It is a valid complaint of a developer that makes great games. You’re being so defensive that you’re blinding yourself to any criticism of these games. I’d argue that emergent RPGs are coming closer and closer to solving the issues you’re mentioning(and in terms of non-RPGs you still didn’t even bother acknowledging Hitman for all the good those newer games have done with emergent mission design).

Gaming has slowly been evolving and I want Rockstar to continue to be a pioneer of this evolution rather than having a very archaic and apparent achilles heel and being stuck in their ways in one major aspect of their games.

but do you not see insanely difficult it would be to account for every single deviation possible that a player can make? how can you account for tim tim who insists during the train heist that he has to drive the train no matter what then tommy boy wants to jump off the train for funsies and then jessie wants to unhitch the cart from the train, then stevie wants to not kill anyone on the train heist and it goes on and on and on.

Again this is why rockstar give you a beautiful engaging and emergent open world so that when you want to do that, you create your own train heist mission and play it the way you want. There is a reason why no one does these things and it's because it's just too much work and when there's too much work, something has to get cut and that usually ends up being the extra open world encounters and design and world building etc.

also again it's just a farce, why does the game world have to adapt to you like a special flower, there is a train heist and you are a participant, just do it right. that's how games have always existed before and been totally fine, but now all of a sudden after a nakey jake video rockstar have to invent a literal dynamic story, setpieces that still have top production quality and still deliver exciting moments.

can they maybe be a little less restrictive? maybe in some instances, but those acting like "wEll I WaS PlaYInG DaRts tHen The MiSSiOn fAilED" and the mission being resuscitate johnny before he bleeds to death, are just being silly and they know it.

EDIT: also i'm ignoring hitman because it's just not a comparable game. I love those games but that's like comparing Halo Infinite and Forza Horizon. Just two completely different genres and styles of video game.

 

[Drizzlehell]

I mean, this is a pretty well known fact. That is why none of these modern Rockstar games have any replay value unless you just want to dick around in the open world. But otherwise there's no point in going through the story missions again if tgey're all gonna play out exactly the same as the last time.

And sure, you may want to do it just to experience the story again, much like you'd wanna rewatch a movie. But we're talking about a story that can easily take about 30 hours to get through, which isn't exactly the same as putting on a 2 hour movie.

 

[March Climber]

but do you not see insanely difficult it would be to account for every single deviation possible that a player can make? how can you account for tim tim who insists during the train heist that he has to drive the train no matter what then tommy boy wants to jump off the train for funsies and then jessie wants to unhitch the cart from the train, then stevie wants to not kill anyone on the train heist and it goes on and on and on.

You’re too zoomed in. Pause for a second, breathe, and zoom out. You’re focusing too much on the minutia. I’m talking about a baby step for Rockstar: focusing on backup general fail states in case of bigger deviations.

There is a reason why no one does these things and it's because it's just too much work and when there's too much work, something has to get cut and that usually ends up being the extra open world encounters and design and world building etc.

…This is Rockstar. You know, Rockstar Games? The big fish. They easily have the resources and benefit of time.

also again it's just a farce, why does the game world have to adapt to you like a special flower, there is a train heist and you are a participant, just do it right. that's how games have always existed before and been totally fine, but now all of a sudden after a nakey jake video rockstar have to invent a literal dynamic story, setpieces that still have top production quality and still deliver exciting moments.

So, in old school RPGs(you know, those good ones people always rave about) what happens in those instances is that the game simply moves on. That was your failure. You missed out on content, cutscenes, and loot. It’s the opposite of hand holding. It’s a legitimate punishment and change. No mission fail screen, no reloading of long drawn out cutscenes that were only funny the first time around, no loading screen of annoyance.

Also to reiterate, one of the things I typed, that you skipped over, was the fact that the mission would increase in difficulty when missing the first train stop. Emergent difficulty can also be a part of emergent mission design. Games have done this too.

The game and world keep moving which makes them feel more alive. In the RPG, the story would shift and change a bit based on this failure, which led you to a new cutscene that others who succeeded might not see.

can they maybe be a little less restrictive, maybe in some instances

This is all I’m asking for, just baby steps. Something more reasonable and less rigid. You don’t want your new game coming out to feel like a dinosaur when it comes to main missions. That’s all I’m saying.

 

[calistan]

The thing that gets me about probably every open world game is the disconnect between the story and what goes on when they let you off the leash. They're all basically two games in one.

GTA IV story = "I come America for better life, for escape criminal past" / open world = murder, rampage, explosions, steal cars, escape from cops.
RDR 2 open world = unstoppable one-man army / story = here's a section where the cutscenes dictate you must surrender / flee / die.

 

[Mattyp]

Didn’t play more than a few hours of RDR2 because of how bad this gameplay felt, like Uncharted a full on rails press button felt more freedom.

Rockstar used to be a top 3 developer for me, wouldn’t even be top 10 anymore.

 

[StueyDuck]

You’re too zoomed in. Pause for a second, breathe, and zoom out. You’re focusing too much on the minutia. I’m talking about a baby step for Rockstar: focusing on backup general fail states in case of bigger deviations.


…This is Rockstar. You know, Rockstar Games? The big fish. They easily have the resources and benefit of time.

So, in old school RPGs(you know, those good ones people always rave about) what happens in those instances is that the game simply moves on. That was your failure. You missed out on content, cutscenes, and loot. It’s the opposite of hand holding. It’s a legitimate punishment and change. No mission fail screen, no reloading of long drawn out cutscenes that were only funny the first time around, no loading screen of annoyance.

Also to reiterate, one of the things I typed, that you skipped over, was the fact that the mission would increase in difficulty when missing the first train stop. Emergent difficulty can also be a part of emergent mission design. Games have done this too.

The game and world keep moving which makes them feel more alive. In the RPG, the story would shift and change a bit based on this failure, which led you to a new cutscene that others who succeeded might not see.


This is all I’m asking for, just baby steps. Something more reasonable and less rigid. You don’t want your new game coming out to feel like a dinosaur when it comes to main missions. That’s all I’m saying.

there is no such thing as infinite resources and money, even for rockstar. I mean look at MS studios and their almost infinite number of resources and money.

Then there's games like star citizen with extensive feature creep and look how gamers respond to it. There is no world where Rockstar can make this magic game people request, not without making some serious cutbacks, maybe the story overall has to be cut down and stripped back. maybe the world needs to be less detailed, who knows but that is what game design is all about.

again GTA/RDR aren't WRPGs, they are linear story based campaign narratives, rollercoaster rides much like your half lifes, dooms etc. you can't have bombastic story telling and set pieces where if little tim tim forgets to jump onto the train with the motorbike it just drives away and tim tim continues the quest and that story is now "failed". That would piss people off.

I also don't know how long ago people have actually played rockstar games of late but they really aren't that restrictive anyway, there are some really extreme rigid set pieces yes, but there are also missions without those fail states, Recently someone found that if you carry some random body back to a quest giver even though that wasn't the final objective in RDR2 the quest giver will comment on what you had done. People seem to gloss over those moments with their nakey jakey videos. (turns out that quest was for an RDO mission, i don't know if that's more impressive or not)

i mean here's a quick video and it's really not even much of an example but still to act like these games don't offer any choice or player deviation is weird to me:



Rockstar also probably aren't listening to forum users and their one youtube video anyway, they sell stupid amounts of copies to normie gamers who just want the fun ride, much like the people who buy cod and so on. I don't think there is an issue of GTA becoming some sort of minecraft or Baldurs gate clone

 

[rofif]

I remember in GTAIII I drove a car parked in Chinatown to 8ball and planted a bomb. Set it and started the mission and the lad I chased ran to the car and

If I thought outside the box in GTAV or Red Dead, the console would implode

ye ye we've all seen the same vid comparing gta3 8ball mission to modern rockstar games.
Aside from few missions, it was largely the same as it is now. Drove to x on the map, shot.

 

[CuteFaceJay]

A classic example.

 

[Guilty_AI]

but do you not see insanely difficult it would be to account for every single deviation possible that a player can make? how can you account for tim tim who insists during the train heist that he has to drive the train no matter what then tommy boy wants to jump off the train for funsies and then jessie wants to unhitch the cart from the train, then stevie wants to not kill anyone on the train heist and it goes on and on and on.

There's games that have been doing stuff like this for years, including story driven ones with generally linear narratives