How relevant is Rockstar?

[spankdatazz22]

Just figured I'd throw this out for discussion, as we're on the eve of the new GTAIV trailer and all the buyout news. It seems the general consensus is there's all this interest in Rockstar as a developer, but I'm wondering why... Granted, GTA is a huge system-selling name - one of the few out there. GTA III was a huge factor in helping the PS2 establish it's dominance in the last gen of systems.

But outside of that, what else is there? To me it seems the Rockstar guys had a ridiculous hit with GTA, but their other titles didn't do much to expand on the sandbox genre or were disappointments. And given the missteps the devs made with placing inappropriate content in San Andreas (and in Vice City - "kill all the Haitians!" comes to mind) and the legal woes that ensued - all self-inflicted problems, I wonder just how forward thinking a developer they are. I didn't play Manhunt, but from what I've read it's okay, but it's content caters to that "lowest common denominator". Table Tennis is well done, but it doesn't move the needle much. Bully is a decent sandbox game, but has that "been there/done that" factor with it imo. State of Emergency (1 & 2) were flat-out flops. What else am I missing?

Also, they're no longer the undisputed king of sandbox games. Crackdown provides a new and addictive take on the genre. And while Saints Row is a REALLY blatant GTA clone, it does what it does really well and even adds a few new wrinkles that people hope Rockstar will implement or improve on. Those two are the first games in the genre that people are actually looking forward to their sequels, something that couldn't be said of all the previous sandbox-themed games.

I'm looking forward to GTAIV, no doubt. Especially since they're using the new NaturalMotion technology. But I do wonder what impact Rockstar will have on this gaming generation. I'm doubting it'll be anywhere near as significant as it was last gen, and it remains to be seen if they're as visionary as they're viewed as being

[NYG_Meth]

Re: How relevant is Rockstar?

Just figured I'd throw this out for discussion, as we're on the eve of the new GTAIV trailer and all the buyout news. It seems the general consensus is there's all this interest in Rockstar as a developer, but I'm wondering why... Granted, GTA is a huge system-selling name - one of the few out there. GTA III was a huge factor in helping the PS2 establish it's dominance in the last gen of systems.

But outside of that, what else is there? To me it seems the Rockstar guys had a ridiculous hit with GTA, but their other titles didn't do much to expand on the sandbox genre or were disappointments. And given the missteps the devs made with placing inappropriate content in San Andreas (and in Vice City - "kill all the Haitians!" comes to mind) and the legal woes that ensued - all self-inflicted problems, I wonder just how forward thinking a developer they are. I didn't play Manhunt, but from what I've read it's okay, but it's content caters to that "lowest common denominator". Table Tennis is well done, but it doesn't move the needle much. Bully is a decent sandbox game, but has that "been there/done that" factor with it imo. State of Emergency (1 & 2) were flat-out flops. What else am I missing?

Also, they're no longer the undisputed king of sandbox games. Crackdown provides a new and addictive take on the genre. And while Saints Row is a REALLY blatant GTA clone, it does what it does really well and even adds a few new wrinkles that people hope Rockstar will implement or improve on. Those two are the first games in the genre that people are actually looking forward to their sequels, something that couldn't be said of all the previous sandbox-themed games.

I'm looking forward to GTAIV, no doubt. Especially since they're using the new NaturalMotion technology. But I do wonder what impact Rockstar will have on this gaming generation. I'm doubting it'll be anywhere near as significant as it was last gen, and it remains to be seen if they're as visionary as they're viewed as being

The lead developer of Crackdown used to be the lead developer of GTA.

[Cebby]

Re: How relevant is Rockstar?

They're up there with EA Sports and Bungie as the most relevant developers in the world. They have the most popular franchise in the universe. It's not even a question; they're pretty damned relevant.

[Jistic]

Re: How relevant is Rockstar?

They have the most popular franchise in the universe.

More popular than the Sims?

[Cebby]

Re: How relevant is Rockstar?

More popular than the Sims?

In that case Solitaire edges out Minesweeper as the most popular game. Sims doesn't sell on consoles so I don't think it really applies. And is it really that popular anymore? I thought it faded out years ago.

[Rodster]

Re: How relevant is Rockstar?

Rockstar became relevant when they released GTA 3 and has become as influential as id when they created Doom. Everyone tried to copy Doom and everyone is trying to copy the GTA series.

[SLAYER]

Re: How relevant is Rockstar?

The lead developer of Crackdown used to be the lead developer of GTA.

What's interesting is that Real Time Worlds' initial concept of Crackdown was more akin to City of Heroes than a more straight-laced sandbox game.

http://www.aryeltech.com/gamers/interview-with-billy-thomson-lead-designer-of-crackdown/

Moving on..

Rockstar is still very relevant. In your analysis of Rockstar games, you forgot Midnight Club & Smuggler's Run. Looking at Motorstorm, Rockstar should resurrect Smuggler's Run as a multi-platform title. The existence of Table Tennis, whose engine is rumored to power GTA IV, shows that Rockstar is still taking chances.

[Misfit]

Re: How relevant is Rockstar?

So long as the company holds one of the most successful franchises in the business they'll be relevant. That has been the main source of their problems though, not necessarily originality or a forward mindset. Table Tennis is pretty bold and unique, even if it isn't great. Manhunt served as somewhat of a departure for them and was a pretty successful stealth game. It did use the same enginse as GTA and certainly borrowed the gritty atmosphere though it did take it further. And I wouldn't say it caters to the lowest common denominator considering this country has always had a fascination with serial killers or this new fascination with torture flicks such as Hostel and Saw. It certainly caters to that demographic no more than the GTA franchise.

Rockstar's biggest problem is getting over the GTA hump. While some applaude them for branching out and making different games, hundreds of others just want to know when the next GTA is coming. And since they've been losing money it's hard to blame them for trying to milk the GTA franchise with PSP-to-PS2 ports and a kiddy GTA in Bully.

I'd give Rockstar a B for their effort outside of GTA. Midnight Club and the Warriors are pretty good titles and we know they're not afraid to try new things (yet). GTA IV will be a smash success and put them back in the spotlight soon enough. I personally don't have any interest in it as I have a "been there, done that" attitude as it pertains to the GTA franchise but I'm curious to see what else they try their hand at.

[Pete1210]

Re: How relevant is Rockstar?

Granted, GTA is a huge system-selling name - one of the few out there. GTA III was a huge factor in helping the PS2 establish it's dominance in the last gen of systems.

But outside of that, what else is there?

Table Tennis?

[spankdatazz22]

Re: How relevant is Rockstar?

I forgot about The Warriors, thx. And Midnight Club definitely had a following last gen. I guess my thinking is... there's no one screaming for sequels to these titles - well, to my knowledge. And I think the relatively strong showing of Crackdown and Saints Row has people looking at GTA with a more discerning eye. Perhaps the new GTA will set it beyond every other game as it did in the PS2-era, I don't know. And as I said, I'm definitely looking forward to the title. I was just thinking that when you look at developers that consistently make great games, they tend to have the talent to branch out - whereas it seems Rockstar's fortunes rise and fall with GTA. And I can't get past how they caused themselves a ton of problems with the unnecessary Hot Coffee issue. You don't see quality devs making those kinds of mistakes.

[Cebby]

Re: How relevant is Rockstar?

Saying Rockstar "only has GTA" is like saying Kobe "only plays basketball". Anybody acquiring R* knows what they're paying for.

[spankdatazz22]

Re: How relevant is Rockstar?

Saying Rockstar "only has GTA" is like saying Kobe "only plays basketball". Anybody acquiring R* knows what they're paying for.

You take away Kobe's jumper and he'll drive on you. Clog the lane and he goes outside. Great defender. Take away GTA from Rockstar and what's next? Manhunt 2? Not a good analogy for me but... Again, no offense was intended. GTA is easily one of the top 4 properties out there. I was just stating this for the sake of discussion; wondering aloud if Rockstar was truly a great developer

[Cebby]

Re: How relevant is Rockstar?

It's more of a "take basketball away from Kobe". If he couldn't play basketball, would the Lakers still pay him 15 mil a year? The answer is no. Take GTA away from R* and would any company want them as anything other than a niche studio? The answer is no. But Kobe can play basketball and R* does have GTA, so both will get paid.

[CaptainZombie]

Re: How relevant is Rockstar?

I forgot about The Warriors, thx. And Midnight Club definitely had a following last gen. I guess my thinking is... there's no one screaming for sequels to these titles - well, to my knowledge. And I think the relatively strong showing of Crackdown and Saints Row has people looking at GTA with a more discerning eye. Perhaps the new GTA will set it beyond every other game as it did in the PS2-era, I don't know. And as I said, I'm definitely looking forward to the title. I was just thinking that when you look at developers that consistently make great games, they tend to have the talent to branch out - whereas it seems Rockstar's fortunes rise and fall with GTA. And I can't get past how they caused themselves a ton of problems with the unnecessary Hot Coffee issue. You don't see quality devs making those kinds of mistakes.

The Warriors was such an excellent game.

Look at how a simple game like Manhunt evolved from GTA into what Bully is today. I think that all of Rockstar's divisions have taken some chances on new original IP's that have helped inspire some of their other franchises.

[Perceptor]

Re: How relevant is Rockstar?

I've been wondering why Rockstar hasn't started developing a Midnight Club next gen title...Midnight Club 3 was a lot of fun and I'd hope they'd release it on a next gen system