Grand Theft Auto V

I'm in.

GTA IV was both flawed and outstanding. R* apply a level of polish like no-one else, it's just that it's polish is applied to the world, rather than the gameplay or narrative. Liberty City, rather than Nico, is the star of GTA IV.

I've discovered that if I consume R* games in chunks, separated by several months, they're great. Which reminds me, I need to dip back into RDR - it's been a while

Rockstar posted a short statement about GTAV earlier today on their site, stating that GTAV is the "the largest and most ambitious game Rockstar has yet created" and will feature a wide variety of environments in the countryside surrounding Los Santos in addition to the city itself.

They also state that the game will take "a bold new direction in open-world freedom, storytelling, mission-based gameplay and online multiplayer," though it's a bit early to tell if that actually means anything or is just hype.

I'm actually pretty excited about what they've cooked up for multiplayer. GTA IV was a step in the right direction in terms of co-op play, I had more fun doing sandbox stuff with a friend than I've ever had playing alone. I'm guessing the "multiple playable characters" will some how fit into a multiplayer mode as well. Only time will tell.

kyrieee wrote:

Almost every review praised it as the second coming of christ (I think it's the highest rated game ever) but that did not prove to be its legacy at all. I find it so strange how all the problems were overlooked.

Just to clarify this, since no one has directly responded...

Ocarina of Time still holds the top spot, but GTA4 is a very close 4th.

Even though I had only played a few hours of GTA3 (and not that impressed), I was totally into the hype for GTA4 and got it on day one. For the first 10 hours or so, it was great. I was completely immersed. But after that, I began losing my immersion and interest, and quit playing at around 50% completion.

This time around, I'm all about Saints Row 3 and its hype. I've pre-ordered it and taking the day off from work on release day to dive in. As for GTA5, I'll likely wait for its inevitable deep discount on a Steam sale, unless it releases in the middle of the year, gets universal praise (from certain reviewers and the GWJ community), and I'm not playing much else at the time.

DSGamer wrote:

I'm just not a fan of long protracted missions without checkpoints or with very sparse checkpoints. One thing that made New Vegas easy for me to finish was that I could save frequently after I'd traveled to the location where I was to do the mission. So I rarely had to start the whole thing over and listen to the same conversation over and over again. I don't think I can play a modern Rockstar game until they change how they handle this.

Yep. Same for me. I enjoyed GTA 4, but it has gotten painfully boring toward the end (still haven't finished). I won't buy another GTA until they add checkpoints within missions.

I could overlook this problem though for a Rockstar game in an alternate setting, like RDR was. What I'd love to see is their take on a Road Warrior/Car Wars type world.

gewy wrote:

I could overlook this problem though for a Rockstar game in an alternate setting, like RDR was. What I'd love to see is their take on a Road Warrior/Car Wars type world.

They already did that sort of with Smuggler's Run a PS2 launch title.

I am with you though. That or maybe some cyberpunk stuff (I always come back to cyberpunk).

Grubber788 wrote:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/1GAdU.jpg)

"GTA 5 multiple protagonists theory" article from PCGamer. Injecting my own wishful thinking here... but revisiting all protagonists from the past 3 games would make for when hell of a story

I couldn't have meh'd harder at the trailer. Thank the heavens for Saints Row!

It just looks too much like IV at this point, and I've become sick of the weird things Rockstar likes to do (overemphasize their animation system, bipolar/nonsensical protagonists, muddy vehicle controls).

Blind_Evil wrote:

I couldn't have meh'd harder at the trailer. Thank the heavens for Saints Row!

It just looks too much like IV at this point, and I've become sick of the weird things Rockstar likes to do (overemphasize their animation system, bipolar/nonsensical protagonists, muddy vehicle controls).

Do you hate puppies as well?

I friggin' ADORE puppies.

Rockstar games always feel like great stories stretched thin over an artificially bloated stretch of average-at-best sandbox gameplay. If I could have watched GTAIV as a miniseries on HBO, I would have chosen that.

Blind_Evil wrote:

I friggin' ADORE puppies.

Rockstar games always feel like great stories stretched thin over an artificially bloated stretch of average-at-best sandbox gameplay. If I could have watched GTAIV as a miniseries on HBO, I would have chosen that.

So here's a question. Is this a GTA problem in general? Or is this a GTA IV problem. I personally think this is a problem with Rockstar games specifically. The sandbox genre is still interesting to me. What you do in that world matters, though. In other words I don't know if going back to play Vice City would be any more enjoyable than IV. Saints Row topped them. As have other open world games.

DSGamer wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:

I friggin' ADORE puppies.

Rockstar games always feel like great stories stretched thin over an artificially bloated stretch of average-at-best sandbox gameplay. If I could have watched GTAIV as a miniseries on HBO, I would have chosen that.

So here's a question. Is this a GTA problem in general? Or is this a GTA IV problem. I personally think this is a problem with Rockstar games specifically. The sandbox genre is still interesting to me. What you do in that world matters, though. In other words I don't know if going back to play Vice City would be any more enjoyable than IV. Saints Row topped them. As have other open world games.

Having just finished playing through III, VC, SA, IV & Addons, then SR2 this summer/fall, I can't agree. I guess I'm in the GWJ minority in that I found IV to be a great game. I still like SA more (even now), but I didn't enjoy SR2 nearly as much. I think it's my interest in a good story over doin' wacky things. The more 'real' the world seems, the more immersive it is. I guess I like to get absorbed and invested into the game world in order to enjoy sandbox games - and the GTA games all clicked for me in that way much more than SR2.

Before going back and playing III, VC, and SA after finishing IV, I thought it was just the (amazing with enb) graphics of IV that made me love it so. Now I know that I just kind of dig R*'s trajectory with the series, and I'm looking forward to whatever they want to sell me. I'm not 'Skyrim excited', but I am happy to report a definite lack of meh. Hopefully everyone will find something fun!

I can't really verbalize my reasons, but I'm with DSG. I have a pretty long list of open world games I've enjoyed considerably more than any Rockstar game: Godfather, Scarface, Saints Row 2, The Assassin's Creed series, Crackdown, Fallout 3.

The thing all those games do that Rockstar never seems to get right (for me) is a sense of permanence, whether it be in gear, character building, party building, whatever.

mateofalcone wrote:

I think it's my interest in a good story over doin' wacky things. The more 'real' the world seems, the more immersive it is.

I have a hard time taking the story or world seriously when it and its denizens is so full of incongruities.

I'm dedicating myself to not purchasing GTAV, whenever it comes out. They've fooled me too many times, to my shame.

I think it's a problem mainly with GTA4 where they tried to take themselves too seriously.

GTA1/2 were pretty much just messing around, hit a points target to move to the next scenario/city. 3 was mainly just messing around hopping from boss to boss with a thin main revenge story, VC was similar but with a slightly more serious "Scarface" main story. I never played SA through properly, but it seemed to be the same formula as 3/VC.

Back to 4, it seems like they got the mix wrong, they wanted both the crazy and the serious, but it was an unsatisfying mix of both.

I think GTA is the type of game where I don't care if it's got a thin plot you can ignore, so long as the action is fun. At this point I think there may be too much baggage in the brand to go down that serious road, and it would be better making a new game for a heavy story.

I loved GTA4, but the argument about the permanence of your actions in the game is a good one. I tried to play the good guy and minimize casualties to the best of my abilities.

SallyNasty wrote:

I tried to play the good guy and minimize casualties to the best of my abilities.

I'm always in two minds about such a comment, on one hand it's good that they've got a world where it would matter (trying to be the real world with civilians), on the other can you really attribute your own rules you play by to the game.

I suppose it's linked to the whole "GTA promotes violence" thing that gets wheeled out occasionally. GTA punishes violence by sending the cops after you as a consequence, so it's perfectly reasonable that a character wouldn't be a psychopath and want to operate without interference from the law.

The thing that got me in GTA4 was you go from the first act, where you are basically a broken dude just trying to do the best that you can, but you are a decent guy, to the next act where you are a murdering psychopath. I really had a hard time on the missions where you had to kill cops.

DSGamer wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:

I friggin' ADORE puppies.

Rockstar games always feel like great stories stretched thin over an artificially bloated stretch of average-at-best sandbox gameplay. If I could have watched GTAIV as a miniseries on HBO, I would have chosen that.

So here's a question. Is this a GTA problem in general? Or is this a GTA IV problem. I personally think this is a problem with Rockstar games specifically.

GTAs and RDR get trotted out a lot when talking about Rockstar games, but I think Bully is an unalloyed success for that template. It practiced a lot of restraint, the lack of which GTAIV specifically is probably criticised for, and by dialing back the scope of its world, story, craziness—heck, even the impact of the violence—I think it became the most focused and robust GTA-type game yet. Bully is sort of like Warren Spector's idea of the "one city block" game.

I expect GTAV to go in the totally opposite direction of course, but I think the brilliant and often overlooked Bully is a great example of how that style of game can go so very right.

Blind_Evil wrote:

...and I've become sick of the weird things Rockstar likes to do (overemphasize their animation system, bipolar/nonsensical protagonists, muddy vehicle controls).

Seriously, I lost count of how many times I spun around in circles before successfully navigating doors and stairs. yeesh.

Gravey wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:

I friggin' ADORE puppies.

Rockstar games always feel like great stories stretched thin over an artificially bloated stretch of average-at-best sandbox gameplay. If I could have watched GTAIV as a miniseries on HBO, I would have chosen that.

So here's a question. Is this a GTA problem in general? Or is this a GTA IV problem. I personally think this is a problem with Rockstar games specifically.

GTAs and RDR get trotted out a lot when talking about Rockstar games, but I think Bully is an unalloyed success for that template. It practiced a lot of restraint, the lack of which GTAIV specifically is probably criticised for, and by dialing back the scope of its world, story, craziness—heck, even the impact of the violence—I think it became the most focused and robust GTA-type game yet. Bully is sort of like Warren Spector's idea of the "one city block" game.

I expect GTAV to go in the totally opposite direction of course, but I think the brilliant and often overlooked Bully is a great example of how that style of game can go so very right.

That's a good point, actually. I really liked Bully. I never finished it on PS2 and so I just bought it 3 days ago on Games on Demand. Because I knew eventually I'd want to play around in the world.

I really liked CJ's character. I especially liked when he car-jacked people and would say, "My needs is greater than your needs."

I think that statement suggests that CJ knows he's an asshole, but at least he's trying to keep things in perspective. I think Rockstar tried to paint Niko as too much of a good guy, which created cognitive dissonance.

Grubber788 wrote:

I really liked CJ's character. I especially liked when he car-jacked people and would say, "My needs is greater than your needs."

I think that statement suggests that CJ knows he's an asshole, but at least he's trying to keep things in perspective. I think Rockstar tried to paint Niko as too much of a good guy, which created cognitive dissonance.

Unless you play with the premise that Niko is schizophrenic. I thought he was bat s**t crazy, a broken human pretending that there was a way to return to normalcy. I had a hard time applying any measure of rationality to the character. Instead, I played like others. I tried to do the 'right thing' while I played, but I was totally ok with him snapping when he was back in fight-or-flight mode. He was a very primal figure for me, and it fit well with the setting of a man coming to America after living through things that obviously sent him over the edge. Anyway, i don't want to spend too much time supporting the game - if you didn't like it, you didn't like it. I just didn't find the narrative as incongruous as some given the largely untold background story.

gewy wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

I'm just not a fan of long protracted missions without checkpoints or with very sparse checkpoints. One thing that made New Vegas easy for me to finish was that I could save frequently after I'd traveled to the location where I was to do the mission. So I rarely had to start the whole thing over and listen to the same conversation over and over again. I don't think I can play a modern Rockstar game until they change how they handle this.

Yep. Same for me. I enjoyed GTA 4, but it has gotten painfully boring toward the end (still haven't finished). I won't buy another GTA until they add checkpoints within missions.

Already done. The Lost and Damned DLC for GTA4 addressed that issue with mid-mission checkpoints, as did Red Dead Redemption. I think R* have learned that lesson.

No telling if anyone has posted this video of a GTAIV PC Mod, but despite my general lack of interest in GTA style games this mod really make me want to see Bethesda's take on a GTA style game.

http://media.rockstargames.com/rockstargames/img/global/news/upload/newswire_1342100464.jpg
http://media.rockstargames.com/rockstargames/img/global/news/upload/newswire_1342100433.jpg

It sounds like a silly thing to say, as we're supposed to hate fog in games, but I like the look of the haze in those pictures, which presumably hides some of the detail scaling in distant terrain. It fits with the smoggy metropolis shown.

We're supposed to hate fog in games?

I think we were supposed to hate fog in games, as it was a means to hide LODs,mip-mapping tricks, and draw distances. In this case, though, it really reads as a smog haze that's a part of the environment, with an added benefit of allowing for those processing tricks that the system probably doesn't really need to do anymore (but would be beneficial nonetheless).

Either way, it looks pretty. Too bad I will more than likely never play it.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

We're supposed to hate fog in games?

When the fog completely obscured everything past 20 feet, yes.

You crazy.

IMAGE(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IdFGW0_CGik/TeUmuz09_mI/AAAAAAAAABA/00mAmqji2Zg/s1600/raptors.jpg)

Back in my day we called that atmosphere and we were damn appreciative!

I'm wondering if I should pick up GTA IV and actually finish it.

Got stuck on about a dozen tries of the "Heat" mission and ragequit.