An examination of the multiplayer components of Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, and Max Payne 3.

Say what you will about Rockstar’s brilliance when it comes to crafting vividly-realized worlds and memorable characters... the actual “game” aspect can feel lacking.

This might not be as much of a problem when applied to a story-based solo experience set in an open world that you can play at your own pace. Sometimes I want to “do nothing” when I play a game like GTA or Red Dead. I let my character simply exist in the world. I sit and listen to the radio while parked outside a mission marker. I might even walk through a space at the slowest pace possible to soak in the atmosphere. For me, there’s value in these moments even if I’m not “achieving” some type of game progress or following the normal feedback loop.

Sure, these atmospheric moments still exist in an impressive virtual voice lobby and playground for friends to hang out in GTA Online. However, when taken online with the intention of creating worthwhile activities to do with other players, the shortcomings of Rockstar's design become even more apparent.

GTA IV was Rockstar’s first true attempt at bringing one of their single player worlds online, and in retrospect it feels quite experimental. It introduces the main problem with Rockstar multiplayer games - the controls. At best they can be serviceable, but at worst they are too clunky to take seriously. Max Payne 3 is an interesting example of Rockstar trying to create a more focused multiplayer in addition to a single player campaign. Looking back at the release of this game, it’s funny to think that there were MLG promotions hyping it up as a competitively viable title (or “esport” if you will). Pre-release videos like this gave the impression that Rockstar was putting in more effort than usual this time around:

Anyone who played Max Payne 3 multiplayer can probably attest to how lackluster the entire thing felt. While there were some cool ideas like incorporating line of sight based bullet time, once again the clunky controls reared their ugly head to ruin what could have potentially been a fun online John Woo simulator.

Similarly to GTA, when I think of Red Dead Redemption, I think of names like John Marston, Bonnie MacFarlane, and Landon Ricketts. I 100%-ed the game (as long as we're not counting the multiplayer achievements added in DLC) because of how much I love being in that world. To be honest there were some good times roaming with friends online and collectively beholding the beauty that is Red Dead, and Rockstar had improved the controls compared to GTA IV. But ask me about any of the multiplayer modes where you shoot other players and I couldn’t tell you a single memorable thing.

We know very little about Red Dead Redemption 2 other than this snippet of text:

Red Dead Redemption 2 is an epic tale of life in America’s unforgiving heartland. The game’s vast and atmospheric world will also provide the foundation for a brand new online multiplayer experience.

Given this info and the success of GTA Online, it’s safe to assume multiplayer will play a large role in Red Dead Redemption 2. Which makes me worried to some extent. I think Rockstar has come a long way with their engine in terms of refining the player movement, gunplay, physics, etc. But I still don’t trust them with multiplayer game design. The main question is whether the game will suffer from the same clunkiness of Rockstar’s previous forays into multiplayer, or if they will finally nail this one weak spot.

Do you agree that Rockstar is better at singleplayer or share my concerns and wish they would stick with what they're good at? Are you one of those people still playing GTA Online, and if so what are you doing?

I enjoyed Red Dead's multiplayer. Co-op was very fun (hoping they have a co-op focus with the new one), the free roam was solid, and the deathmatch stuff was even pretty fun.

GTA V Online is a huge deal so obviously a good number of people don't agree with you.

They've taken their time earnestly getting to multiplayer but I'm excited to see what they do next.

The "feel" of recent Rockstar games (their shooting, human body physics and movement, driving, etc) is a huge draw for me. You say it sucks, I could not disagree more. Max Payne 3 is the best TPS ever made gameplay wise and GTA V is a lot better than any other similar game IMO. I wish a lot more games felt as good as theirs do.

I enjoyed every Rockstar multiplayer a whole lot because they bring the distinct Rockstar feel of movement and everything to MP instead of feeling like everything else on the market.

Edit: I still like to play GTA Online and I do pretty much everything in it. Missions, Heists, Races, just fucking around, trying the new updates, etc. etc.

I don't agree with most of what you say. I find the controls in GTA games to be good. The animations can be a bit odd at times - punching in GTA games is bad but most other weapons feel fine. Running animations could be tightened up too but overall the controls handle very well.

There are few games that offer what both RDR and GTA offer in terms of being able to free roam around with a crew of friends and have some good fun.

@artisanbreads: 8M players per week definitely means I am in the minority on that opinion, for sure haha. But I don't think it's uncommon to find the sentiment online from people who wish they had done Lost and Damned / Gay Tony style expansions for V instead of more GTAO stuff. (Maybe the game didn't need THE BENZ?)

Perhaps I wasn't clear when describing my thoughts on the controls. I think they work well in the context of solo play, but when I am facing a human opponent I need the controls to be responsive and tight. I am one of the biggest Max Payne 3 apologists and I sunk dozens of hours into multiplayer in its heyday (if you can call it that). But I won't twist the facts and claim that the game controlled well online.

I loved the sense of weight like when Max would hit the ground after a shootdodge, and for what it's worth I still think it's the best controlling game they've made. But after playing something as fluid as Gears of War, any other cover-style (multiplayer) shooter feels clunky to me.

Edit: I should also clarify that when I complain that games don't control as well as Gears, I'm not asking for every game to move and feel exactly like being a nimble, walking refrigerator who slams into concrete. Simply mimic the responsiveness that makes it so smooth to control.

i freaking loved max payne 3 multiplayer but i got the game late and when gta v came out most people moved on to that, i play gta v online almost everyday heists and pretty much every co-op based mission rockstar does online has been a great draw for me

i'm already assembling my friends to get red dead redemption 2 on release day and after finishing the story create a posse and ride into the sunset being outlaws and robbing banks and trains i really really want onlne train robbery

For me that weight and physics feel is a draw. Yeah, the control isn't always super tight but that leads to crazy moments that add a lot more for me. It's a similar line of thinking to why I like a Battlefield game over any other shooter. It can be a bit messy but the highs are so high and unpredictable. I have gotten used to them over time too so that I really rarely ever have any issues. I have beaten MP 3 on every difficulty and the movement just requires you to think ahead on your movement because you can't just change course on a dime.

And there is just a level of "world immersion" that matters in multiplayer too for me. You feel like a real person in a real physical environment, where as most games you feel like a floaty camera or gun just sliding about.

That is an add in single player or multiplayer. And since everyone is on an equal playing field as far as those physics based control, I think it all just really works. Won't be for everyone but again I vastly prefer it over any similar games.

I feel the way you feel about Gears of War making other TPS games feel clunky about Max Payne 3. It has a cover system but is not totally tied to it and gives you so many other options and it's all so fluid and free form. A Gears of War feels boring to me now, even if yeah it's doing what it wants to do well. What it is doing is limited. Personally I am pretty over games that are cover based shooters only. I think we should move past that in 2016.

I also have to agree with @jesus_phish that other similar games aren't doing what Rockstar does with their multiplayer, even if you say it's clunky. Still a pretty unique experience in this kind of open world game.

Completely agree with you, TC.

Heck, it took the GB crew about 4 years after GTAIV came out to talk about how bad the controls actually are. I still feel the same way about GTAV. Rockstar just doesn't make games that "feel" good to play. Then again, I haven't checked out Max Payne 3 yet, and there are a lot of people who claim that it's the best TPS out there. Based on what I've seen of the gameplay, it just doesn't seem to control well, but I won't know for certain until I try it out myself.

And speaking of multiplayer problems - GTAV's online community seem to some of the scummiest people I've had the displeasure of playing with. Literally the first time I entered online mode (and voice chat was turned on by default for some reason), I heard some dickhead talking to a Spanish-speaking player about how "Trump will deport your [racist slur] ass back to Mexico, you [homophobic slur]." I'm not even kidding - these were the first words I heard upon entering that world, and the next couple hours I spent online was just more of the same (not even from the same guy; I joined a different session, but still more garbage spewing out of people).

As for the gameplay portion of the GTAV online, one of my first missions was to deliver some drugs (of course, this being GTA and therefore completely unimaginative), and it just sucked. I had a lot of players who tried to kill me while I was trying to just get around and mind my own business. When I finally got to the main area of the mission, I had about 10 guys to kill and then proceeded to drive some drugs back to some random dude. Of course, on top of the problems mentioned here, none of this controlled well, so I quickly realized that GTAV:O was just not for me.

Heck, I stopped playing the single player as well after a few hours. Regarding the parts that you mentioned you enjoy about these games, OP - (the world and the environments) - I could never take GTA seriously enough to get immersed into those worlds. For every fantastic looking sunset and well-detailed city skyline, there were always segments where R* was trying way, way too hard to be funny / edgy. What with internet cafes called tw@t, scooters called Faggio, and fucking terrible attempts at satire on their radio stations, I just got frustrated with GTA. That stuff immediately destroyed any appreciation I have for the beauty of the world it is set in. The game has so much potential, but it's entirely wasted on crap controls and an awful sense of humor.

I understand I'm in the minority here, but I've always hoped Rockstar would fix these issues in each iteration, but it feels like nothing is done to the controls and in my opinion, the only thing that gets better is the graphics and the amount of detail in the world. Which is obviously working out for them and their fanbase, but I wished they aspired to polish and clean up their boring gameplay.

I would move that laterally to "Rockstar sucks at gameplay"

Red Dead (thanks to slow mo and a generally slower pace) and GTAV get by in the campaign department in terms of moving and shooting but as soon as those mechanics were tested with multiplayer gaming they proved woefully inadequate. Either you go free aim (which feels fucking awful and puts you at a MASSIVE disadvantage) or lock on (which is wildly over compensating and barely feels like I'm exercising any skill as the player)

Add in the sluggish movement and I'm a guy WAY less excited by Red Dead 2 than most people.

Don't get me wrong, I really liked the Read Dead and GTAV campaigns but I can't get past the garbage 3rd person gameplay when it actually comes under scrutiny in any way.

@artisanbreads: Yeah, I played a lot of MP3 multiplayer with a group of people on the R* Social Club and I have to admit there were some pretty intense matches, and the potential was there for cool moments like someone diving off a rooftop in slow-mo while taking out multiple dudes in mid-air or sliding belly first down a stairwell.

I think “world immersion” is a good term for what you’re describing with the physics engine and gunplay. A pristine room in Max Payne 3 never looks the same once a gunfight ensues, to say the least.

I think Gears in general often gets misunderstood by the casual observer as being solely focused on hunkering down in cover and popping out to take shots a la Time Crisis. In reality it’s the way your character can slide into and through cover positions that creates a dynamic system of movement, which you can use to avoid being shot and to outmaneuver your opponent. It's almost like breaking a dude's ankles in basketball with a crossover.

@sravankb: I've given GTA Online multiple tries, but I’ve never stuck with it for long. There’s something very tacked-on about the menu at the top left and how it controls pretty much everything you do.

When I ask what are people even doing in GTAO, I don’t mean it in a rude way; I’m genuinely curious what activities they’ve found that keep them coming back for more.

I don’t think you’re alone in your position on Rockstar’s writing and sense of humor, by the way. It's rarely been laugh out loud funny to me (except for being a teenager listening to Chatterbox). Now it’s more of a tradition to expect silly puns and exaggerated parody. I still find their worlds to be unforgettable and a joy to simply be in.

I will say the writing has gotten better over time, with GTA V being a masterpiece IMO.

@bluefish: Thank you for bringing up the issues with the aiming. It's another major reason along with the movement that their games feel clunky online. The hit detection in Max Payne 3 wasn't good enough for free aim, while the hard lock would awkwardly snap to center mass (even when the target is behind cover) and, like everything on-foot in Rockstar multiplayer, always felt like you were fighting the controls.

@sravankb: Holy Christ, most of the people using mics I've encountered in GTAV are hands down some of the biggest scumbags. If they're not just spewing vile racist shit (have a PSN ID in Spanish, good stuff), they're either trying to imitate the lamest of Rockstar's comedy or trying to get the people playing with them into some weak YouTube-personality antics. I don't know what it is GTAV multiplayer to make all of these people behave like the worst parodies of "hardcore gamerz".

That was my experience as well, and i didn't stick around for more than maybe 3-5 hours tops. Was a cesspool of stupidity.

the multiplayer in RDR was fun, not the traditional deathmatch and such, just the "lobby" aspect of it, being able to roam around the map with some random players was enough for me

As someone who has finished Max Payne 2 on pc a thousand times (with m/kb obviously), I still think RDR has the best third-person shooting of any game I've ever played, pc or console. From how good the weapons feel (with oomph but not too heavy), how npcs react to being hit and how much control you have even on horseback, to the sounds and their solution for weapon-selection (which I think is the most elegant solution to switching between dozens of weapons, even compared to mousewheel-scrolling on pc).

Those strong points might not extend to fast-paced multiplayer game modes like deathmatch (haven't really played that), but it was still a lot of fun in free-roam (where the dead eye stuff is pretty limited compared to sp and you have to rely a lot more on just the basic free aiming).

I'd hope they could somehow manage to integrate deathmatch and other gamemodes into the open world with RDR2. But ultimately I don't really care, I'm here for the SP and I'm sure they'll deliver that either way.

@dharmabum: You're right that in Gears the movement between cover matters, and of course there is the old shotgun rolling technique. I don't mean to say it's just sitting in cover but in the end being tied to cover is limiting and I think we should move on at this point.

@hans_maulwurf: Very well said, duder. I am harsh on the multiplayer, but RDR (especially coming off of GTA IV's controls) deserves credit for its elegance and refinement. Replaying it on Xbox One with an improved presentation is a godsend.

Playing co-op with a couple of friends in RDR was some of the best fun I've had in multiplayer, but most of the time where I interacted with random people on the free roam plains it was a poor experience. There were several times I logged in and spent 15 minutes being randomly sniped by jerks hiding on random rooftops in the main town, respawning, being quickly sniped again, and eventually logging out in frustration. That was not fun. I hope the co-op returns.

I agree about the controls working much better with single player than multiplayer.

We can't pretend GTA V Online is not a thing. It's one of the most successful multiplayer endeavours IN THE HISTORY OF VIDEO GAMES. You can't just ignore that and say Oh R* sucks at multiplayer. "No, they don't!" <- said 1 billion dollars. :P

If I were you I wouldn't expect any grand sweeping changes to their approach. If you felt V Online was an improvement to previous efforts maybe RDR2 will in turn be an improvement. That said, RDR2O simply cannot be an equivalent to V Online. Have you looked at that game recently? It's bananas. You just don't have those tools in RDR, unless suddenly we are racing horse carriages on walls and in the sky.

Also, I have to say that Max Payne 3 is the best controlling TPS ever made. RDR had better hit impact and NPC reactions, but man, Max, you buttery bastard.

You try to guess the quality of RDR online by comparing it to 3 multiplayer modes it will probably have nothing to do with and ignoring GTA online? What?

I tried played GTAV online on PS4 last week and it didn't seem too appealing to play solo. However I imagine playing it co-op and cruising around with friends would be really fun. It might be dependent on playing with people you know.

Did not even read this. RDR multiplayer was highly enjoyable for me.

I don't play GTA Online anymore, but it was incredibly fun mustering three pals and doing heists, missions and races together. Especially the "final" bank heist. Wouldn't mind doing something similar in RDR if it comes to PC.

@geraltitude: I never said they sucked at making money haha.

I must say I'm happy to see the love for Max Payne 3 here. I remember when it came out I spent a lot of time defending its merits against criticisms that it strayed too far from its Remedy roots, but alas that's a discussion for another day.

@pyrodactyl: Purely speculating based on their previous efforts with multiplayer (and why I'm not optimistic).

Damn you @dharmabum! That is actually a completely legitimate loophole you found me in!

MP3 for life. Nothing but love for Remedy, but still. I mean, just turn on MP3, dive onto the floor, then rotate the camera around Max and watch him aim. How is that not the peak of TPS?

The problem with GTA Online is the structured events were all boring. (havent done the heists) If they took the Just Cause 2 multiplayer route of having these weird events happen across the map seamlessly then that would be great.

I agree about the sluggish controls but Rockstar have been getting better from game to game so hopefully they dont just make lock on the default control scheme and call it a day because gameplay is hard.

Exactly. And deciding when it's the right move to get up or stay down and those times when you don't get up get just riddled with bullets on the ground. Ahhhh beautiful.

I really liked Red Dead's multiplayer. Even the free roam had so many fun moments with random players where we were hoping roof to roof in Chuparosa, getting our wanted level high whilst shooting off the law with rifles and fire bombs. All the little hunting games were fun, too. When I was active it felt each major town had something going on (Armadillo, Chuparosa, Blackwater) which was neat.

Oh yeah there were oxen or something you could ride so there was makeshift bull fighting. What a game.

@artisanbreads: It's like seeing a beautiful mountain vista... brings a tear to my eye.

I know this isn't going to be the case but god I would pay so much for them to transplant MP gameplay into Red Dead.

@dharmabum: If you're going to go so far as to give your post a title, you better live up to the title.

Where's the promised examination of the multiplayer? You don't like how their games controlled. What else?

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks Red Dead (and the GTAs to a lesser extent )was best with no auto-aim. I like it when a game isn't just everyone nailing headshots with 100% accuracy. No auto-aim made the firefights much more intense, and it lent an extra level of power to shotguns, semi autos and even melee.

I'll agree that GTAV online wasn't great (and very boring), but I only played it at the 360 launch, and it seems to have changed drastically since then. I had a ton of fun with Red Dead and GTA 4 multiplayer though, even in the more rigid game modes. TDM in Red Dead was fun, and Chopper V Chopper from Lost and Damned is some of the most fun I've had with videogames.

I guess the point I'm making is that they offer a different experience than other multiplayer games, and that sometimes, perfect control and snappiness like Gears has isn't the most fun. I do think Max Payne 3 is maybe the best playing TPS ever, precisely because of how weighty it feels. The weighty gameplay plus the breadth of possibilities makes these some of the most immersive multiplayer games, just like their singleplayer.

@hunkulese: I probably could (should?) have gone more in-depth with examining each game's multiplayer (now that I think about it I hardly mention GTA Online), but frankly when it comes to the staple multiplayer modes like deathmatch, CTF, etc. that games have long since done to death, there's not much to point out beyond the fact that the controls make said modes not worth playing.

I'm not qualified to speak much about GTA Online in its current state. As much as I was eager to get into it at launch, the activities and free roam shenanigans could only sustain my interest for so long (and hey, guess what, your character still controls like garbage compared to a modern multiplayer TPS like Gears of War). I got tired of staring at the clouds during the egregious load screens and gave up when trying to setup a heist, but I assume they are missions prefaced with a brief cutscene in which you drive to a location and complete a task (not unlike the dull, repetitive mission structure that already existed in the game).

The main purpose of the blog was to show how Rockstar have yet to prove they know how to make a multiplayer as good as their single player, why it's essential for a game to control well in a multiplayer environment, and how it relates to RDR2's presumed multiplayer focus.

Clearly some people have had a much better time in multiplayer than I have, so I enjoy reading these comments.

I don't think Rockstar's games have been very fun on the competitive side, but I do think the co-op modes they incorporate are entertaining for a while. I am not really looking at their games for the competitive aspects, so I hope it doesn't bleed into the singleplayer and co-op modes the way GTA Online kind of did.

GTA Online is still a broken mess and controls like shit. It can be a lot of fun doing stupid nonsense with friends, but it's always a hassle.

Just because something is popular and makes a lot of money doesn't mean it is well made.

@huntad: Good point. I really shouldn't even care that such ubiquitous modes exist and should just ignore them. It reminds me of the tacked on multiplayer for Tomb Raider 2013 for instance; easily avoidable and totally unnecessary to the point that the developer didn't include it in the sequel.

Rockstar has done a few of their own takes on co-op I can think of. The free co-op missions they added to RDR were fairly basic like you said but a welcome addition as was the Undead Nightmare horde mode. I recall Max Payne 3 also had a wave based survival mode added eventually through DLC. I hope they can come up with some more interesting concepts with RDR2 similar to heists in GTAO. (I think someone already mentioned a train robbery which could be a cool idea).

Yall can complain about how Rockstar sucks at making multiplayer games, how bad GTA Online is, how shitty RDR multiplayer was, but none of that changes the fact that millions of fuckin people play the multiplayer of those games for literal years after their release, and probably literal years in aggregate total hours played.

Sure, maybe you want the games to feel as clean and crafted as the singleplayer components are, but they don't. Maybe you want there to be mission structure, or any structure at all, but there isn't enough for you. That's fine. That's your preference. That doesn't, however, mean that the games are objectively 'bad'. They just don't suit you.

It's the same scenario as Minecraft: older players want structured experiences, younger players don't. Older players are savvier spenders, young players aren't. You know who wins every time? Who grows the market exponentially year over year? Who complains but still plays? Young players. Rockstar multiplayer is basically a lawless, anarchic grief fest. Some of the top-played, top-streamed games in the world are the also lawless, anarchic grief fests. The Culling, H1Z1, Day Z, etc. Well, most young players like griefing each other. When I was a kid, I also liked griefing. All my friends did, too. I get it. That's why it also makes perfect sense that these huge sandboxes in which to troll and dominate other players for shits and giggles are ENORMOUSLY popular.

This is to say nothing of the fact that GTA Online actually does have a ton of very carefully-crafted, directed experiences.

And yes, I am saying that massive, massive user attachment for many years is an indication of success. Superhero movies are, critically, bad movies, but that doesn't change the fact that they are massively lucrative, and that millions of people like them. Those numbers, that appeal, is a measure of success, and frankly, those numbers are almost certainly the only goddamn metrics Take Two cares about when assessing whether or not they made a good multiplayer game. People play it, they like it, they pay money into it. It must be good.

Rockstar multiplayer games are targeted, purposeful experiences. There is intention in their lawlessness. It's what is popular, dude, you just don't like it.

The co-op heists in GTA Online were some the best multiplayer co-op activities I've ever played, out shined only by Destiny raids. If they did something along those lines for RDR 2, I'd be pretty stoked about the multiplayer.

@kcin: If I made this thread a question, I'd mark this post as "answered."

@ll_exile_ll: I should probably try them out with a group of people to see if my complaints hold true. It seemed very convoluted even setting up the heist lobby itself so I wasn't that motivated to continue.

Like any moderately in-depth cooperative activity, it's best done with a group friends using microphones.

Disabling auto aim completely for everyone and improving movement would go a long way. But even then, getting into a game in V and RDR is too much of a slow drag. I don't buy Rockstar games for the MP. I also dislike the RPG grind. Getting a decent house and storing a nice car shouldn't be this much of a drag.

I still do that. People won't let it go. Reading another highly critical post this week finally convinced me to write a Steam review.

@ezekiel: You've inspired me to look up some old threads in the Max Payne 3 forum (probably a bad idea). I came across this post I made 3 years ago that I would still stand by:

It's the best shooting/movement Rockstar has achieved with their engine so far. I've gone back and played it countless times, always Old School + free aim (yes, with a gamepad). Definitely some of the most satisfying gunplay and enemy feedback I've experienced in a TPS. The environments are stunningly detailed too, and you never leave an area the same way that you entered it once the bullets start flying. It's a shame most people probably played it like a cover shooter instead of letting their bullet time fill or using the infinite shootdodge.

I still don't think the multiplayer is very balanced or smooth enough to take seriously, but it's a good improvement over their past games for sure. Hopefully GTA V has even better controls.

I can understand how fans of Sam Lake's writing might be against Rockstar's style when it comes to storytelling. But gameplay-wise I can't agree with anyone who says that 3 doesn't play like a Max Payne game. I'd go so far as to say it's the best "playing" of the trilogy.

Nice Steam review by the way. Keep fighting the good fight! =]

Never really liked Rockstar MP. More so because of the way some people play it or the immaturity of the chat.

I remember once doing a free roam session in RDR and this guy was just waiting at a spawn point with a shotgun killing everyone with auto aim. Rinse and repeat. Pretty lame.

Also the load times are really shit. Watch Dogs MP is better than Rockstar MP imo.