Rockstar games have great gameplay and a great open world, but their stories and characters are usually middle-of-the-road.
IDK, it's not as clear-cut as that.
A lot of people have criticisms of Rockstar sandbox gameplay. From floaty controls to never-quite-right gunplay/combat systems (be it cover, aiming, etc). My personal beef is the lack of a mid/high level gameplay loop (it's all in the moment, movement or combat, there's no long-term risk, challenge or strategy) - funnily enough the biggest thing that Chinatown Wars on the 3DS got right (the randomised drug dealing empire-building system).
Indeed, I've spoken to several Rockstar devs over the years who admit that even in-house they have a lot of reservations with the gameplay and open worlds they create. But the solutions to the problems are generally Mount Everest in size, so it's impossible to hold it against them.
And re stories, I think you're dead wrong. I think all of their characters are excellent. I genuinely can't think of a bad character made by Rockstar's narrative team.
It's the plot that often is the tripping block. Because it's hard to make a punchy and compelling plot that carries energy over such a long and broad experience. Indeed, Red Dead Redemption took some big risks and by-and-large they paid off big time, but the story is still not safe from criticism.
I think you really need glasses. Show me a 3rd party open world game with better models and lighting.
assassins creed is third party?!?
Uh... AC is 3rd party, right? Like Ubisoft are a giant publisher but not owned by Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo so still technically 3rd party?
