Why can't all sandbox games be like RDR??

It seems like if a sandbox game is fun, it has to be missing something. If it has gameplay, it's missing story . If it has story it has god awful gameplay. Maybe it gets boring quick, maybe the graphics are horrid, maybe the online is broken, or maybe the voice acting is terrible. But not with RDR. I thought everything was spot on. The story, the audido, the gameplay, the voice acting, the controls, online. EVERYTHING. Do you think other developers are going to learn from Rockstar or will we be going back to more repetetive missions, more horrific, uninspired plots and hopeless gameplay?

Because then all the games would be the same and boringAgent-Zero

It seems like if a sandbox game is fun, it has to be missing something. If it has gameplay, it's missing story . If it has story it has god awful gameplay. Maybe it gets boring quick, maybe the graphics are horrid, maybe the online is broken, or maybe the voice acting is terrible. But not with RDR. I thought everything was spot on. The story, the audido, the gameplay, the voice acting, the controls, online. EVERYTHING. Do you think other developers are going to learn from Rockstar or will we be going back to more repetetive missions, more horrific, uninspired plots and hopeless gameplay?

XxXCrimsonXxX

RDR!!! awesome.

Well I have a 15mbps connection with a good NAT and everytime I try to join a game it says "you have been removed due to connection issues" and forces me to dashboard. That alone ruined a lot of the game for me because there is no way in hell the problem is on my end seeing as how all my ports are forwarded, my connection is great and my NAT is open.

[QUOTE="Agent-Zero"]Because then all the games would be the same and boringXxXCrimsonXxX

It all depends on the budget of the game. Rockstar has a large budget, so they can spend a lot of time perfecting a game; while other developers are more limited, so they can only focus on certain areas of a game while neglecting other aspects.

It sucks, but time is money and there needs to be profit.

It all depends on the budget of the game. Rockstar has a large budget, so they can spend a lot of time perfecting a game; while other developers are more limited, so they can only focus on certain areas of a game while neglecting other aspects.

It sucks, but time is money and there needs to be profit.

a55a55inx

It all depends on the budget of the game. Rockstar has a large budget, so they can spend a lot of time perfecting a game; while other developers are more limited, so they can only focus on certain areas of a game while neglecting other aspects.

It sucks, but time is money and there needs to be profit.

the reason is that game companies are not willing to give budgets like rockstar does,

GTAiv had more than 100 million dollars of budget on it,and it sold a lott of copies,

so the companies are not willing to risk that much money,

but Rstar is a well known game company and is able to sell games easily.so they are gonna do the best they can with a lot of money on their back,(you cant expect less from Rstar).

When you say Rockstar, say Rockstar NORTH, please. ;) Yes, there's a difference. I thought they did an excellent job with Episodes from Liberty City. GTA the way it was meant to be and now RDR which is truly amazing. I'm not even a fan of sandbox games. When I see one, i usually give it the cold shoulder, but RDR has changed my mind. Elian2530

news flash mate,

Red Dead Redemption was not made by Rockstar North, they make all the GTA games and Manhunt

RDR was made by Rockstar San Diego, who previously made the Midnight Club games (plus a few other random Rockstar titles)

It seems like if a sandbox game is fun, it has to be missing something. If it has gameplay, it's missing story . If it has story it has god awful gameplay. Maybe it gets boring quick, maybe the graphics are horrid, maybe the online is broken, or maybe the voice acting is terrible. But not with RDR. I thought everything was spot on. The story, the audido, the gameplay, the voice acting, the controls, online. EVERYTHING. Do you think other developers are going to learn from Rockstar or will we be going back to more repetetive missions, more horrific, uninspired plots and hopeless gameplay?

XxXCrimsonXxX

[QUOTE="Elian2530"]When you say Rockstar, say Rockstar NORTH, please. ;) Yes, there's a difference. I thought they did an excellent job with Episodes from Liberty City. GTA the way it was meant to be and now RDR which is truly amazing. I'm not even a fan of sandbox games. When I see one, i usually give it the cold shoulder, but RDR has changed my mind. NoDzombie

news flash mate,

Red Dead Redemption was not made by Rockstar North, they make all the GTA games and Manhunt

RDR was made by Rockstar San Diego, who previously made the Midnight Club games (plus a few other random Rockstar titles)

I was worry about RDR. Since they also came out with GTA4. One of the worse games I own. Could they have made that city or story more boring?

I was worry about RDR. Since they also came out with GTA4. One of the worse games I own. Could they have made that city or story more boring?

wiouds

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

I was worry about RDR. Since they also came out with GTA4. One of the worse games I own. Could they have made that city or story more boring?

LospROpHETs

I did not like a single characters in the game. I quit the game after driving over through the same gray color block after grey color block while trying to dodge the traffic.

[QUOTE="LospROpHETs"][QUOTE="wiouds"]

I was worry about RDR. Since they also came out with GTA4. One of the worse games I own. Could they have made that city or story more boring?

wiouds

I did not like a single characters in the game. I quit the game after driving over through the same gray color block after grey color block while trying to dodge the traffic.

It seems like if a sandbox game is fun, it has to be missing something. If it has gameplay, it's missing story . If it has story it has god awful gameplay. Maybe it gets boring quick, maybe the graphics are horrid, maybe the online is broken, or maybe the voice acting is terrible. But not with RDR. I thought everything was spot on. The story, the audido, the gameplay, the voice acting, the controls, online. EVERYTHING. Do you think other developers are going to learn from Rockstar or will we be going back to more repetetive missions, more horrific, uninspired plots and hopeless gameplay?

XxXCrimsonXxX

This isn't anything new. Free-roam RPGs have been doing this for a while. Fallout 3 is equally as good in my opinion. I don't think the multiplayer side of Red Dead is anything too special though. It's certainly fun, but - just like every other multiplayer feature - it gets boring fast.

I don't know what game you were playing, but Red Dead did have repetitive missions. Did you not play the rinse and repeat formula of "Arrive at point A, go to point B, kill some dudes, return to point A" that they had for pretty much 80% of the missions?

The size and scope of abig sandboxgame automatically means there's going to be compromises elsewhere. Hardware limitations mean its unreasonable to expect a 50 sq mile, steady streaming, explorable world with Gears of War-like graphics or whatever.

A massive budget and a lot of development time can help minimize these compromises, but they will always be there.

[QUOTE="XxXCrimsonXxX"]

It seems like if a sandbox game is fun, it has to be missing something. If it has gameplay, it's missing story . If it has story it has god awful gameplay. Maybe it gets boring quick, maybe the graphics are horrid, maybe the online is broken, or maybe the voice acting is terrible. But not with RDR. I thought everything was spot on. The story, the audido, the gameplay, the voice acting, the controls, online. EVERYTHING. Do you think other developers are going to learn from Rockstar or will we be going back to more repetetive missions, more horrific, uninspired plots and hopeless gameplay?

KlepticGrooves

This isn't anything new. Free-roam RPGs have been doing this for a while. Fallout 3 is equally as good in my opinion. I don't think the multiplayer side of Red Dead is anything too special though. It's certainly fun, but - just like every other multiplayer feature - it gets boring fast.

I don't know what game you were playing, but Red Dead did have repetitive missions. Did you not play the rinse and repeat formula of "Arrive at point A, go to point B, kill some dudes, return to point A" that they had for pretty much 80% of the missions?

Did they fix the online yet? Haven't touched it in a week because I disconnect. The first update didn't do anything, so I returned it (rented) I'll buy it once it is fixed.

Did they fix the online yet? Haven't touched it in a week because I disconnect. The first update didn't do anything, so I returned it (rented) I'll buy it once it is fixed.

jad206

It seems like if a sandbox game is fun, it has to be missing something. If it has gameplay, it's missing story . If it has story it has god awful gameplay. Maybe it gets boring quick, maybe the graphics are horrid, maybe the online is broken, or maybe the voice acting is terrible. But not with RDR. I thought everything was spot on. The story, the audido, the gameplay, the voice acting, the controls, online. EVERYTHING. Do you think other developers are going to learn from Rockstar or will we be going back to more repetetive missions, more horrific, uninspired plots and hopeless gameplay?

XxXCrimsonXxX

[QUOTE="XxXCrimsonXxX"]

It seems like if a sandbox game is fun, it has to be missing something. If it has gameplay, it's missing story . If it has story it has god awful gameplay. Maybe it gets boring quick, maybe the graphics are horrid, maybe the online is broken, or maybe the voice acting is terrible. But not with RDR. I thought everything was spot on. The story, the audido, the gameplay, the voice acting, the controls, online. EVERYTHING. Do you think other developers are going to learn from Rockstar or will we be going back to more repetetive missions, more horrific, uninspired plots and hopeless gameplay?

HawkEye1997

I though that The Saboteur was good. You could drive, clime and sneak to deal with the mission. I though the Disguise is good with the different rules have not being suspiction than when you are in your normal clothes.

I think it is bad to say that all mission are "Go to place A, Kill all there and go to place B..." That does not just discribe sandbox games but most games like RPG, FPS, and TPS.

[QUOTE="XxXCrimsonXxX"]

It seems like if a sandbox game is fun, it has to be missing something. If it has gameplay, it's missing story . If it has story it has god awful gameplay. Maybe it gets boring quick, maybe the graphics are horrid, maybe the online is broken, or maybe the voice acting is terrible. But not with RDR. I thought everything was spot on. The story, the audido, the gameplay, the voice acting, the controls, online. EVERYTHING. Do you think other developers are going to learn from Rockstar or will we be going back to more repetetive missions, more horrific, uninspired plots and hopeless gameplay?

This isn't anything new. Free-roam RPGs have been doing this for a while. Fallout 3 is equally as good in my opinion. I don't think the multiplayer side of Red Dead is anything too special though. It's certainly fun, but - just like every other multiplayer feature - it gets boring fast.

I don't know what game you were playing, but Red Dead did have repetitive missions. Did you not play the rinse and repeat formula of "Arrive at point A, go to point B, kill some dudes, return to point A" that they had for pretty much 80% of the missions?

[QUOTE="KlepticGrooves"]

[QUOTE="XxXCrimsonXxX"]

It seems like if a sandbox game is fun, it has to be missing something. If it has gameplay, it's missing story . If it has story it has god awful gameplay. Maybe it gets boring quick, maybe the graphics are horrid, maybe the online is broken, or maybe the voice acting is terrible. But not with RDR. I thought everything was spot on. The story, the audido, the gameplay, the voice acting, the controls, online. EVERYTHING. Do you think other developers are going to learn from Rockstar or will we be going back to more repetetive missions, more horrific, uninspired plots and hopeless gameplay?

XxXCrimsonXxX

This isn't anything new. Free-roam RPGs have been doing this for a while. Fallout 3 is equally as good in my opinion. I don't think the multiplayer side of Red Dead is anything too special though. It's certainly fun, but - just like every other multiplayer feature - it gets boring fast.

I don't know what game you were playing, but Red Dead did have repetitive missions. Did you not play the rinse and repeat formula of "Arrive at point A, go to point B, kill some dudes, return to point A" that they had for pretty much 80% of the missions?

If you're referring to my post, then I was meaning that people seem to have the impression that RDR has revolutionised gaming in some way, when in-fact it hasn't done anything new. It's just GTA but in a different skin.

As I said, there's absolutely no variation in mission style. But that's the problem with the type of game it is, it's being constricted to killing or collecting stuff. Once you've played the game for 5 or so hours you've played pretty much every type of mission the game has to offer. Much the same as MW2 is a straight-forward FPS, so shooting people is all you should expect.

I'm not suggesting RDR is bad (it's pretty good), but I don't think everything was spot on. The story was ok, but not as deep and involving as I hoped. The last few hours of the story was good, but most of it was predictable and, dare I say...boring? You summed up my opinion well when you said "Sometimes there was flavor, but it was the same thing every mission."

If you're referring to my post, then I was meaning that people seem to have the impression that RDR has revolutionised gaming in some way, when in-fact it hasn't done anything new. It's just GTA but in a different skin.

As I said, there's absolutely no variation in mission style. But that's the problem with the type of game it is, it's being constricted to killing or collecting stuff. Once you've played the game for 5 or so hours you've played pretty much every type of mission the game has to offer. Much the same as MW2 is a straight-forward FPS, so shooting people is all you should expect.

I'm not suggesting RDR is bad (it's pretty good), but I don't think everything was spot on. The story was ok, but not as deep and involving as I hoped. The last few hours of the story was good, but most of it was predictable and, dare I say...boring? You summed up my opinion well when you said "Sometimes there was flavor, but it was the same thing every mission."

KlepticGrooves

I agree with you completely, but RDR is still great :D

The only other thing that bothered me about the game was Prestige in multiplayer. I was very pissed off today when a person in my posse said they're gonna prestige to get the super-donkey. Why would Rockstar go the COD way?