THE BORE
General => Video Game Bored => Topic started by: Himu on March 09, 2020, 06:48:53 AM
-
Holy fuck I'm dying for some car jacking action. Gtav was first announced like ten years ago.
Fuck GTA online. GTA is now a once every ten years franchise now and that's utter bullshit.
Hell, there won't even be a new gta this gen. Gtav for next gen systems were ports of an already established game.
-
Yeah, so?
Id rather have a next gen GTA 6 then a current gen GTA.
Gta Online is pretty fun to mess around in imo
I have no beef with them taking a long time to make it. Especially seeing Dan Houser leave.. now thats scary.
-
Quality >
-
It's been 80 years...
-
I only want 2D GTA and that's never happening again even in 10 years.
-
It’s been 6 and a half years :dead
-
It’s been 6 and a half years :dead
I FEELS LIKE TEN
I NEED ME SOME CAR JACKIN
:maf
-
I’m just playing through the story for the first time and I’m having a good time. I usually play it for a bit, get distracted by shit and then don’t play enough to get used to the janky ass controls. But this time I’m going to finish it.
-
I’m just playing through the story for the first time and I’m having a good time. I usually play it for a bit, get distracted by shit and then don’t play enough to get used to the janky ass controls. But this time I’m going to finish it.
make sure to put the control scheme to : STANDARD FPS
-
Also your characters abilities will get better as you go further in the story, so the driving and shooting get tighter.
-
Yeah, so?
Id rather have a next gen GTA 6 then a current gen GTA.
Gta Online is pretty fun to mess around in imo
I have no beef with them taking a long time to make it. Especially seeing Dan Houser leave.. now thats scary.
fuck gta online. piece of shit resulted in no single player dlc,
-
Yeah, so?
Id rather have a next gen GTA 6 then a current gen GTA.
Gta Online is pretty fun to mess around in imo
I have no beef with them taking a long time to make it. Especially seeing Dan Houser leave.. now thats scary.
fuck gta online. piece of shit resulted in no single player dlc,
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
no
-
I’m just playing through the story for the first time and I’m having a good time. I usually play it for a bit, get distracted by shit and then don’t play enough to get used to the janky ass controls. But this time I’m going to finish it.
make sure to put the control scheme to : STANDARD FPS
I’ll have to check that out, thanks!
-
It’s been 6 and a half years :dead
To be fair, we ain't getting GTA 6 before 2023.
Yeah, so?
Id rather have a next gen GTA 6 then a current gen GTA.
Gta Online is pretty fun to mess around in imo
I have no beef with them taking a long time to make it. Especially seeing Dan Houser leave.. now thats scary.
fuck gta online. piece of shit resulted in no single player dlc,
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
no
Rockstar said so themselves.
-
I always end up getting excited for a new GTA, but really I am absolutely fine with the wait times between them. Only so much of the terrible houser satire, and standard gta missions you can take. It's fun and all, for the first 30 hours or so, but I never even complete the anymore anyway. Last one I did was Vice City, and I am not trying to say that is a better game than GTAV or even San Andreas, but it just felt less bloated and I like that.
-
I think the "side games" Episodes from Liberty City and the Liberty City/Vice City Stories games are a good length.
-
It’s been 6 and a half years :dead
To be fair, we ain't getting GTA 6 before 2023.
Yeah, so?
Id rather have a next gen GTA 6 then a current gen GTA.
Gta Online is pretty fun to mess around in imo
I have no beef with them taking a long time to make it. Especially seeing Dan Houser leave.. now thats scary.
fuck gta online. piece of shit resulted in no single player dlc,
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
no
Rockstar said so themselves.
nah man
“No, it was not really a conscious decision, it’s just what happened,” Sarwar told GI. “With GTA 5, the single-player game was absolutely massive and very, very complete. It was three games in one. The next-gen versions took a year of everyone’s time to get right, then the online component had a lot of potential but to come close to realizing that potential, also sucked up a lot of resources. And then there are other games – in particular Red Dead Redemption 2. The combination of these three factors means for this game, we did not feel single-player expansions were either possible or necessary.”
-
It’s been 6 and a half years :dead
Even then: No DLC to actually fix the barren north or add SAn Fran or Las Vegas to the game like the older San Andreas. :fbm
-
It’s been 6 and a half years :dead
To be fair, we ain't getting GTA 6 before 2023.
Yeah, so?
Id rather have a next gen GTA 6 then a current gen GTA.
Gta Online is pretty fun to mess around in imo
I have no beef with them taking a long time to make it. Especially seeing Dan Houser leave.. now thats scary.
fuck gta online. piece of shit resulted in no single player dlc,
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
no
Rockstar said so themselves.
nah man
“No, it was not really a conscious decision, it’s just what happened,” Sarwar told GI. “With GTA 5, the single-player game was absolutely massive and very, very complete. It was three games in one. The next-gen versions took a year of everyone’s time to get right, then the online component had a lot of potential but to come close to realizing that potential, also sucked up a lot of resources. And then there are other games – in particular Red Dead Redemption 2. The combination of these three factors means for this game, we did not feel single-player expansions were either possible or necessary.”
What i'm referring to is an interview where they mention the success of GTAO catching them off guard, and them basically having to rethink their general strategy.
I'll post it if i can find it, though tbh, i'm not sure how to search through 6 years of random interviews.
I believe it was around the time the remaster came out.
The actor playing Franklin and Michael also were called in for some shoots, IIRC, but the plans were obviously scrapped, and in one of the Newswire updates, they outright mentioned that more single player content was coming (this i remember reading and discussing on GAF at the time, even).
That said, GTA Online probably wasn't the only factor, and i'm sure working on RDR2, and in general, the lower profitability of a beefy single player component, compared to the amount of work needed, were also elements to consider for them.
I think the three GTAV characters were shitty, so i don't miss it too much, but the map did have a lot of unexplored potential, especially the country areas.
-
I MISS GTA
I am fucking dying for a new GTA game
-
Yeah, so?
Id rather have a next gen GTA 6 then a current gen GTA.
Gta Online is pretty fun to mess around in imo
I have no beef with them taking a long time to make it. Especially seeing Dan Houser leave.. now thats scary.
fuck gta online. piece of shit resulted in no single player dlc,
If you mean no "Lost and the Damned" or "The Ballad of Gay Tony," then you're correct.
If you instead mean there's nothing story-driven that was also downloadable, you're not.
There have been plenty of story-adjacent DLC items like Online Heists, and a separate special-ops/James Bond bunker-driven action movie with the Doomsday Heist, many of which have sequential Jobs given by characters from the main game.
But, yeah, I would have loved a GTA V San Andreas Stories like we had for Vice City and Liberty City.
I think the "side games" Episodes from Liberty City and the Liberty City/Vice City Stories games are a good length.
:respect
-
It's been longer since a Saints Row game. :rage
-
:karen
-
Why would they bother making a new one? GTAV still sells like it released a couple months ago.
-
It's been longer since a Saints Row game. :rage
Agents of Mayhem came out in like 2017
ltf
Someone port SR2 to Switch pls
-
It's been longer since a Saints Row game. :rage
Agents of Mayhem came out in like 2017
ltf
Someone port SR2 to Switch pls
Better not, shit is garbo
-
It's been longer since a Saints Row game. :rage
Agents of Mayhem came out in like 2017
ltf
Someone port SR2 to Switch pls
Better not, shit is garbo
GTFO
:ufup
-
It's been longer since a Saints Row game. :rage
Agents of Mayhem came out in like 2017
ltf
Someone port SR2 to Switch pls
Better not, shit is garbo
GTFO
:ufup
My favorite Saints Row game, but come on, have you played it recently? Not only does it run like shit on all platforms, I dont think you'd be able to deal with this kind of graphics
(https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/352789-saints-row-2-windows-screenshot-driving-with-a-badly-damaged.jpg)
-
Graphics < Gameplay every time.
SR2 was the best open world game of the PS3/XB360 generation. The only major drawback for me is the soundtrack. Fuck Paramore.
Looking back on GTAV, I think I liked GTA4 more. Both single player and especially multiplayer. I shit all over GTA4 shortly after release but I have a huge desire to replay it and I definitely feel that I got more enjoyment out of it than GTA5.
Niko is by far the best protagonist in any GTA game. If you're gonna replay it, definitely do the Episodes also.
-
Eh Id probably still take GTA V over it, but yeah SR2 was pretty great when it came out. Although it still missing some cool features from Saints Row 1, customization over your character wise.
Like in SR1 you could have some clothing options in layering and how to wear your jeans etc, that were missing from 2. Also I thought the multiplayer in 1 was really good fun, especially the mode Blinged Out Ride. That was missed sadly. Also the soundtrack for the first game was pretty good, having DOOM on it and Madvillain.
I played the demo of the first game to death haha, going out of bounds to discover more of the map.
Recently I wanted to replay IV and the episodes, but for some reason it runs like crap on my system. FPS is high but it's stuttering like crazy, really a bummer.
-
:karen
AND YET SHE PERSISTED.
Looking back on GTAV, I think I liked GTA4 more. Both single player and especially multiplayer. I shit all over GTA4 shortly after release but I have a huge desire to replay it and I definitely feel that I got more enjoyment out of it than GTA5.
:wtf
I guess it's down to personal preference, but for me:- dropping all the R3 Mission types from the previous titles was unforgivable.
- ditching the antics and lampooning of American culture (esp. Ammunation!) in favor of Scorsese-ing it up was lame.
- the tumescent ragdolling of Euphoria and NaturalMotion made the controls unbearable.
-
Euphoria was fine. But yeah, the controls being shit didn't help. I'm fine with ragdolls improving and it was cool. But the cars driving like boats sucked ass.
-
don't forget the overly serious story that rambled on and on and went nowhere. or how about how they took out almost everything you could spend money on so there was fuck all customization (except for a bunch of tracksuits lol). oh and no checkpoints that was a lot if fun on later missions huh
-
Gtaiv is ass and I hate that I liked that porkbun post that said Niko "I'll kill this guy for 50 dollars but why can't I stop keeling people?!" Bellic is the best GTA protag because he gave props to SR2.
In fact the second half of the post is so triggering that I think I'll just go and unlike it
Also mmarsu proves that there's something in the water in the Netherlands. Truly a wounded people that have had brain damage over time. Every single post made in this thread is wrong and he should feel bad. Jesus Christ on crackers Dutch posters are useless.
-
niko isn't even the best character in his game :lol
-
Tommy Vercetti is the best but my favorite is still Claude Speed. I like the strong, silent, shut the fuck up and do the job type. A tough head nod is all you need.
-
I liked Tommy a lot but I'm also the only person I know that likes both Franklin and Michael.
IMO in GTA games the side characters always stand out more than the protagonists.
-
Michael is a fantastic character. I think GTAV story would be better if it was just about him. The old, retired bank robber suffering from a midlife crisis that gets back into the game had so much potential. Then they kind of blew it.
-
I like the idea of Franklin being an aspiring criminal and Michael trying to tell him it's not what it's cracked up to be but they didn't really dig into that as much as I would have wanted.
-
Same. Franklin kind just drops off after a while
-
Haven't cared for a GTA since Vice City.. The fun torch was easily passed to the Row.
-
Row was great but the low budget killed it. fun writing and creative missions still weren't enough to offset the way they used the same dull map for three games in a row.
-
The ultimate irony is, Red Dead Redemption 2 is more of a sequel to GTA IV for than GTA V was. Most of the criticism and praise of IV has been applied to RDR2.
Clunky or slow, unresponsive controls (which I do love, I don't want every single game to feel the same).
Story or narrative driven above all else, everything revolving around the story's themes is reflected in gameplay.
Excellent world building, unbelievable sense of time and place.
An emphasis on more realistic approached to more gamey things.
The main difference is, people were able to empathize and bond with Arthur, love him as a character and person. Niko was a very conflicted, broken, flawed person. Not much about him is lovable.
I do genuinely believe most people don't like Niko, over him being a terribly written character. The emphasis of people saying "he says he wants to change, BUT HE KILLS LIKE A THOUSAND PEOPLE! :lol", that is the ENTIRE fucking point of his character. He is FLAWED and a HYPOCRITE, two human behaviors and traits.
If you watch all the cutscenes, Niko is painted as flawed, and the emptiness of living in Liberty City exasperated that. You're offered a choice of killing a junkie or corrupt cop, both brother's to one of your friends. The main love interest after Michelle is the alcoholic sister of that same friend.
Roman is a loser, Brucie is a loser, Little Jacob is perpetually stoned, Packie is a broken and degenerate criminal.
The entire game is a depressing romp with absolutely no hope, with likable but fleshed out characters, depicting one of the biggest and most popular cities during W Bush era America.
Most of the criticism leveled at GTA IV about gameplay? I understand that, and on many levels, it's not addictive or fleshed out like PS2 GTAs. But everything about GTAIV is meant to be taken in as a whole. It is not supposed to be a larger than life, power fantasy experience. It's purpose is to be a depressing and cynical journey in a lively and believable world.
GTA V in so many ways felt like a game born from fans bitching and whining about GTA IV. I love GTA V as well, but it feels entirely reactive as a developed game, rather than having a strong creative vision from the start.
I've been a GTA and Rockstar fan since GTA III, I play these fucking games like they're crack. The common criticism thrown at GTAIV is generally lacking in any critical or deep understanding of the game.
-
Row was great but the low budget killed it. fun writing and creative missions still weren't enough to offset the way they used the same dull map for three games in a row.
SR1 and 2 map are entirely different. 3 was a different city entirely. 2's map is full of easter eggs and things to explore. Baffling opinion.
-
I do genuinely believe most people don't like Niko, over him being a terribly written character. The emphasis of people saying "he says he wants to change, BUT HE KILLS LIKE A THOUSAND PEOPLE! :lol", that is the ENTIRE fucking point of his character. He is FLAWED and a HYPOCRITE, two human behaviors and traits.
Or they fucked up on the writing of the character. I know it's the point. Doesn't make the execution good.
Also kind of weird to say GTAV lacks creative force when R* wanted gamers to sit and deal with Michael's degrading family storyline. They were up their asses with GTAIV. "Niko wouldn't drive a ambulance so we've decided to not have R3 ambulance missions". SMH.
-
I do genuinely believe most people don't like Niko, over him being a terribly written character. The emphasis of people saying "he says he wants to change, BUT HE KILLS LIKE A THOUSAND PEOPLE! :lol", that is the ENTIRE fucking point of his character. He is FLAWED and a HYPOCRITE, two human behaviors and traits.
Or they fucked up on the writing of the character. I know it's the point. Doesn't make the execution good.
The goal was to have a very flawed character that muddles in the idea of redemption and starting anew, but the environment he attempts to do that in, only makes him more empty and makes him dig deeper into his own grave, taking those important people around him, with him.
How did they fail? How did the writers fuck up?
This is why conversations about GTA IV don't work, people that genuinely try to understand the intent of the game waste energy with people that want movie parody and satire/slapstick based storytelling, with build your own criminal empire gameplay. It's a huge split in the audience and GTAIV, RDR1, and RDR2 demonstrate that.
-
gta4 was boring as shit in every way possible
-
Row was great but the low budget killed it. fun writing and creative missions still weren't enough to offset the way they used the same dull map for three games in a row.
SR1 and 2 map are entirely different. 3 was a different city entirely. 2's map is full of easter eggs and things to explore. Baffling opinion.
3 - 4 - Gat Out of Hell
three games in a row, same map
-
gta4 was boring as shit in every way possible
Give me more boring shit, less Scarface power fantasies plsssssss
-
i don't mind if they do it right. gta4 was not done right. rdr2 was at its core a pretty boring story but it was told well and the game was fun.
-
I do genuinely believe most people don't like Niko, over him being a terribly written character. The emphasis of people saying "he says he wants to change, BUT HE KILLS LIKE A THOUSAND PEOPLE! :lol", that is the ENTIRE fucking point of his character. He is FLAWED and a HYPOCRITE, two human behaviors and traits.
Or they fucked up on the writing of the character. I know it's the point. Doesn't make the execution good.
The goal was to have a very flawed character that muddles in the idea of redemption and starting anew, but the environment he attempts to do that in, only makes him more empty and makes him dig deeper into his own grave, taking those important people around him, with him.
How did they fail? How did the writers fuck up?
This is why conversations about GTA IV don't work, people that genuinely try to understand the intent of the game waste energy with people that want movie parody and satire/slapstick based storytelling, with build your own criminal empire gameplay. It's a huge split in the audience and GTAIV, RDR1, and RDR2 demonstrate that.
RDR1 is full of boring shit like coralling horses. I love boring. Michael's family story is boring. I dig boring. But Niko Bellic is not a good character. In order for a character like that to work you have to harp on his flaws. Like in Taxi Driver, Scorsese clearly shows his spiraling mental state.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak3ma7wtE_0
In Apocalypse Now you get the intro that shows the main character clearly suffering from PTSD.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntPHFVWDIqM
In order for a character like Niko to work you have to get more than what they provided. He has to go into his flaws and acknowledge them. The game does a poor job of establishing Niko's flaws. But here's the thing. In a story like this the trick is not only to show the characters flaws but also create empathy surrounding those blemishes. Take the recent Joker film. We know he's mentally ill and has fucked up actions/thoughts. But the movie smartly creates an empathetic case surrounding them to help further contextualize them.
Show me a scene in GTAIV where the game does this for Niko? The game is limited by the fact that the only cutscenes that show up are during and after missions. You don't see how Niko is personally dealing with his hypocrisy or how he even justifies it.
It's just bad.
Good idea, poor execution.
Row was great but the low budget killed it. fun writing and creative missions still weren't enough to offset the way they used the same dull map for three games in a row.
SR1 and 2 map are entirely different. 3 was a different city entirely. 2's map is full of easter eggs and things to explore. Baffling opinion.
3 - 4 - Gat Out of Hell
three games in a row, same map
Oh sorry. I forgot SR4 and Gat Out of Hell exist. For me Saints Row ends with 3.
-
4's story could been something, but instead it ending up being rambling nonsense like most other rockstar games. tons of cutscenes and endless dialog but a story that goes nowhere. honestly i felt like 5's story, flawed as it was, was a huge step up from previous games.
-
4's story could been something, but instead it ending up being rambling nonsense like most other rockstar games. tons of cutscenes and endless dialog but a story that goes nowhere. honestly i felt like 5's story, flawed as it was, was a huge step up from previous games.
It really was.
-
Gtaiv is ass and I hate that I liked that porkbun post that said Niko "I'll kill this guy for 50 dollars but why can't I stop keeling people?!" Bellic is the best GTA protag because he gave props to SR2.
In fact the second half of the post is so triggering that I think I'll just go and unlike it
Also mmarsu proves that there's something in the water in the Netherlands. Truly a wounded people that have had brain damage over time. Every single post made in this thread is wrong and he should feel bad. Jesus Christ on crackers Dutch posters are useless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsZTFSfXaw
:goty
-
Dutch posters are useless.
:'(
-
I do genuinely believe most people don't like Niko, over him being a terribly written character. The emphasis of people saying "he says he wants to change, BUT HE KILLS LIKE A THOUSAND PEOPLE! :lol", that is the ENTIRE fucking point of his character. He is FLAWED and a HYPOCRITE, two human behaviors and traits.
Or they fucked up on the writing of the character. I know it's the point. Doesn't make the execution good.
The goal was to have a very flawed character that muddles in the idea of redemption and starting anew, but the environment he attempts to do that in, only makes him more empty and makes him dig deeper into his own grave, taking those important people around him, with him.
How did they fail? How did the writers fuck up?
This is why conversations about GTA IV don't work, people that genuinely try to understand the intent of the game waste energy with people that want movie parody and satire/slapstick based storytelling, with build your own criminal empire gameplay. It's a huge split in the audience and GTAIV, RDR1, and RDR2 demonstrate that.
RDR1 is full of boring shit like coralling horses. I love boring. Michael's family story is boring. I dig boring. But Niko Bellic is not a good character. In order for a character like that to work you have to harp on his flaws. Like in Taxi Driver, Scorsese clearly shows his spiraling mental state.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak3ma7wtE_0
In Apocalypse Now you get the intro that shows the main character clearly suffering from PTSD.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntPHFVWDIqM
In order for a character like Niko to work you have to get more than what they provided. He has to go into his flaws and acknowledge them. The game does a poor job of establishing Niko's flaws. But here's the thing. In a story like this the trick is not only to show the characters flaws but also create empathy surrounding those blemishes. Take the recent Joker film. We know he's mentally ill and has fucked up actions/thoughts. But the movie smartly creates an empathetic case surrounding them to help further contextualize them.
Show me a scene in GTAIV where the game does this for Niko? The game is limited by the fact that the only cutscenes that show up are during and after missions. You don't see how Niko is personally dealing with his hypocrisy or how he even justifies it.
It's just bad.
Good idea, poor execution.
Row was great but the low budget killed it. fun writing and creative missions still weren't enough to offset the way they used the same dull map for three games in a row.
SR1 and 2 map are entirely different. 3 was a different city entirely. 2's map is full of easter eggs and things to explore. Baffling opinion.
3 - 4 - Gat Out of Hell
three games in a row, same map
Oh sorry. I forgot SR4 and Gat Out of Hell exist. For me Saints Row ends with 3.
I'm sorry to tell you, but my cutscenes seeker chip or CPU is broken and I can't find exact cutscenes in a 20-30.hour game to support an argument that will end up not mattering. I've beatan the game many times many years ago, my memory of exact scenes in anything is slipping away due to weed smoking or alcohol use.
GTA IV has depth with it's characters and story. It's fine if people don't care or think it's boring. People simplify or misconstrue many things to fit how they feel, rather than observe what may or may not be true. Many people that play GTAIV feel like it's sluggish shit, I can't say people didn't feel that.
GTA IV resonated with a lot of people, and the reasons why it did can be pretty interesting. The people that shit on GTAIV, their points or arguments are way more boring than anything in GTAIV. Joker is too, so us Apocalypse Now.
-
GTAIV really is just not that good. Barely anything to do, dull protagonist, awful controls. Saints Row 2 blew it out of the water.
-
I'm sorry to tell you, but my cutscenes seeker chip or CPU is broken and I can't find exact cutscenes in a 20-30.hour game to support an argument that will end up not mattering.
ok
-
sounds like a concession to me. glad 100% of the thread posters agree that gta4 is ass, rare to come to such a quick and definitive conclusion.
-
sounds like a concession to me. glad 100% of the thread posters agree that gta4 is ass, rare to come to such a quick and definitive conclusion.
I'm not sure what's more disappointing: GTAIV, FFXIII, or MGS4.
-
sounds like a concession to me. glad 100% of the thread posters agree that gta4 is ass, rare to come to such a quick and definitive conclusion.
Moar like all Saints Row Stan's wanna shove their noses in each other's asses and fart, giggling like mad because everyone's shit smells the same.
-
Saints Row stans :beli
I made this thread. I am a massive GTA fan.
-
saints 3 was okay, i never played the previous titles. gta4 was just a half step that rdr2 finished as far as a good way to tell a more serious story.
-
GTAIV really is just not that good. Barely anything to do, dull protagonist, awful controls. Saints Row 2 blew it out of the water.
Agreed, but even Saints Row 1 already blew it out of the water, with its free aiming system and fun sidemissions
-
GTAIV really is just not that good. Barely anything to do, dull protagonist, awful controls. Saints Row 2 blew it out of the water.
Agreed, but even Saints Row 1 already blew it out of the water, with its free aiming system and fun sidemissions
Saints Row 1 had the GOAT multiplayer mode where each team had to pimp their ride. Everything else was pretty forgettable, it was a stop gap summer game in 2006, a game to take a break from Oblivion, Dead Rising, or CoD2 multiplayer.
-
GTAIV really is just not that good. Barely anything to do, dull protagonist, awful controls. Saints Row 2 blew it out of the water.
Agreed, but even Saints Row 1 already blew it out of the water, with its free aiming system and fun sidemissions
Yeah Sr1 was already better than GTAIV
-
GTAIV really is just not that good. Barely anything to do, dull protagonist, awful controls. Saints Row 2 blew it out of the water.
Agreed, but even Saints Row 1 already blew it out of the water, with its free aiming system and fun sidemissions
Yeah Sr1 was already better than GTAIV
As someone that takes world building, attention to detail, and how realized an open world is seriously, this post triggers me on a level I can't express. Saints Row 1 was dated back in 2006, it looked like a Nickelodeon goop town game, it played like okay swamp ass, and it did nothing for pushing open world games forward.
It was a GTA clone that cashed in on there being no GTA games in the horizon. It and Just Cause 1 lived in the same ghetto. Taking a glance at reviews for saints Row 1, most reviewers praise the multiplayer above all else. Pimp my Ride or whatever the fuck it was, was truthfully a saving grace for the game :lol
-
saints row 3 >>>>>>>>>> saints row 4>>>saints row 2.
-
SR1 has much better gameplay. I played it before GTAIV came out. After the new car smell wore off with GTAIV I went back to SR1 and I was like "yeah this is so much better than gtaiv"
-
saints row 3 >>>>>>>>>> saints row 4>>>saints row 2.
I can't downvote this post enough.
:oreilly
-
sounds like a concession to me. glad 100% of the thread posters agree that gta4 is ass, rare to come to such a quick and definitive conclusion.
I'm not sure what's more disappointing: GTAIV, FFXIII, or MGS4.
Spore :mjcry
-
sounds like a concession to me. glad 100% of the thread posters agree that gta4 is ass, rare to come to such a quick and definitive conclusion.
I'm not sure what's more disappointing: GTAIV, FFXIII, or MGS4.
MGS4 by far.
You are back at Shadow Moses with modern HD graphics :gladbron
You‘ll fight hordes of these stupid little robots. :goty
-
GTAIV really is just not that good. Barely anything to do, dull protagonist, awful controls. Saints Row 2 blew it out of the water.
Agreed, but even Saints Row 1 already blew it out of the water, with its free aiming system and fun sidemissions
Saints Row 1 had the GOAT multiplayer mode where each team had to pimp their ride. Everything else was pretty forgettable, it was a stop gap summer game in 2006, a game to take a break from Oblivion, Dead Rising, or CoD2 multiplayer.
i cant be bothered finding old gifs but the vehicle destructions, physics, mayhem missions, keith david, pipebombs and the mp mode made it all pretty good imo
Sure gta iv pushed the boundaries but it was also trying to be too realistic and therefore, less fun as an effect.
-
sounds like a concession to me. glad 100% of the thread posters agree that gta4 is ass, rare to come to such a quick and definitive conclusion.
I'm not sure what's more disappointing: GTAIV, FFXIII, or MGS4.
GTAIV was actually a genius game, one day peons will understand.
-
OSCAR-CALIBER WRITING
-
big american titties :rejoice
-
Asian DFC :rejoice
-
OSCAR-CALIBER WRITING
No i mean the story was pretty shitty, but that's a standard for GTA games.
I'm talking about the game itself.
-
GTAIV's final mission was utter dog feces.
-
gta4 did have a penis in it
-
So is GTAV good?
First GTA I've really liked and I've been playing them since the first.
I always thought Rockstar was overrated with real shitty mission design and gameplay decisions.
Then RDR1 had checkpoints and better game design and was a fantastic game that I hoped GTA would learn from.
Then GTAV was basically RDR1 GTA with further improvements to the gameplay and world design, also fantastic.
Then RDR2 is that too, so fantastic as well.
I had fun driving around in GTA3 and Vice City and San Andreas and fucking around, but I couldn't finish any of them and I gave up in GTA4 in some mission where you had to follow a fucking train with a car. Shitty missions + no checkpoints just made the main story missions a mix of fun and then frustrating pain in the ass shit you keep retrying which was not worth the time. Thankfully Rockstar got A LOT better from RDR1 onwards. But who knows if they'll be a hat trick wonder now that the studio heads have left or if the rest of the employees can keep the quality without them.
-
sounds like a concession to me. glad 100% of the thread posters agree that gta4 is ass, rare to come to such a quick and definitive conclusion.
I'm not sure what's more disappointing: GTAIV, FFXIII, or MGS4.
Add FFXV to the list. Not that I had high hopes, but it's one of the most polished turds I've played.
-
sounds like a concession to me. glad 100% of the thread posters agree that gta4 is ass, rare to come to such a quick and definitive conclusion.
I'm not sure what's more disappointing: GTAIV, FFXIII, or MGS4.
Spore :mjcry
Remember when they told us it'd be scientific so it could be used for teaching purposes in school.
-
GTAIV really is just not that good. Barely anything to do, dull protagonist, awful controls. Saints Row 2 blew it out of the water.
Trailer was dope though
Koyaanisqatsi music :drool
-
sounds like a concession to me. glad 100% of the thread posters agree that gta4 is ass, rare to come to such a quick and definitive conclusion.
I'm not sure what's more disappointing: GTAIV, FFXIII, or MGS4.
Spore :mjcry
Fable
Dragons Age 2
-
The ultimate irony is, Red Dead Redemption 2 is more of a sequel to GTA IV for than GTA V was. Most of the criticism and praise of IV has been applied to RDR2.
Clunky or slow, unresponsive controls (which I do love, I don't want every single game to feel the same).
Story or narrative driven above all else, everything revolving around the story's themes is reflected in gameplay.
Excellent world building, unbelievable sense of time and place.
An emphasis on more realistic approached to more gamey things.
The main difference is, people were able to empathize and bond with Arthur, love him as a character and person. Niko was a very conflicted, broken, flawed person. Not much about him is lovable.
I do genuinely believe most people don't like Niko, over him being a terribly written character. The emphasis of people saying "he says he wants to change, BUT HE KILLS LIKE A THOUSAND PEOPLE! :lol", that is the ENTIRE fucking point of his character. He is FLAWED and a HYPOCRITE, two human behaviors and traits.
If you watch all the cutscenes, Niko is painted as flawed, and the emptiness of living in Liberty City exasperated that. You're offered a choice of killing a junkie or corrupt cop, both brother's to one of your friends. The main love interest after Michelle is the alcoholic sister of that same friend.
Roman is a loser, Brucie is a loser, Little Jacob is perpetually stoned, Packie is a broken and degenerate criminal.
The entire game is a depressing romp with absolutely no hope, with likable but fleshed out characters, depicting one of the biggest and most popular cities during W Bush era America.
Most of the criticism leveled at GTA IV about gameplay? I understand that, and on many levels, it's not addictive or fleshed out like PS2 GTAs. But everything about GTAIV is meant to be taken in as a whole. It is not supposed to be a larger than life, power fantasy experience. It's purpose is to be a depressing and cynical journey in a lively and believable world.
GTA V in so many ways felt like a game born from fans bitching and whining about GTA IV. I love GTA V as well, but it feels entirely reactive as a developed game, rather than having a strong creative vision from the start.
I've been a GTA and Rockstar fan since GTA III, I play these fucking games like they're crack. The common criticism thrown at GTAIV is generally lacking in any critical or deep understanding of the game.
Very excited to get to RDR2 whenever I do. I loved IV, particularly driving. Even if you were a skilled driver, a car chase in IV could still be incredibly challenging...and fun. Loved Niko and all his friends too.
San Andreas is the only mainline GTA I've never finished. I don't care for it which has been weird for as long as it's been a thing since it seems to be everyone's favorite GTA.
-
Michael is a fantastic character. I think GTAV story would be better if it was just about him. The old, retired bank robber suffering from a midlife crisis that gets back into the game had so much potential. Then they kind of blew it.
Michael is the only one worth a damn.
I like Trevor, but he's "le reddit legion XD!"/so wacky!!!!! character that you can't take him seriously and he's a complete psychopath to boot to where the "best ending" is pointless.
Whatever his name (the other one) is so pointless. Meant to be the Millennial fill in for GTA5, but does absolutely nothing for the plot.
-
Michael is a fantastic character. I think GTAV story would be better if it was just about him. The old, retired bank robber suffering from a midlife crisis that gets back into the game had so much potential. Then they kind of blew it.
Michael is the only one worth a damn.
I like Trevor, but he's "le reddit legion XD!"/so wacky!!!!! character that you can't take him seriously and he's a complete psychopath to boot to where the "best ending" is pointless.
Whatever his name (the other one) is so pointless. Meant to be the Millennial fill in for GTA5, but does absolutely nothing for the plot.
They wanted to have the three GTA archetypes in one game, and also needed a character access point in all the SoCal environment types (as far as criminal dramedy goes anyway), so in that sense Franklin played a double role.
But i agree he doesn't fit within the narrative well, Michael and Trevor are linked in multiple ways, and the game would've worked just as well, if not better, by having you use Michael the whole time, with Trevor as a nemesis; but i liked the switch mechanic in itself, it was fun to jump into a new character and see what they were up to.
I wish they had given you more strategic freedom in missions, on how to position and use, the three men team.
-
I'm glad that GTA can stay silly and they can make Red Dead the focus of their clunky life simulator stuff from now on, considering I loved RDR2 to death. Give me all the stupid, restrictive, "realism" bullshit.
Beta GTAIV had cars that ran out of gas :aah
-
Michael is a fantastic character. I think GTAV story would be better if it was just about him. The old, retired bank robber suffering from a midlife crisis that gets back into the game had so much potential. Then they kind of blew it.
Michael is the only one worth a damn.
I like Trevor, but he's "le reddit legion XD!"/so wacky!!!!! character that you can't take him seriously and he's a complete psychopath to boot to where the "best ending" is pointless.
Whatever his name (the other one) is so pointless. Meant to be the Millennial fill in for GTA5, but does absolutely nothing for the plot.
I actually liked all 3 and how they played off each other. Thought it was well done.
But years later, can i remember a single thing about the storyline in GTAV? Nope, but I can still remember driving around that map and some of the fun gameplay stuff I did.
-
Michael is a fantastic character. I think GTAV story would be better if it was just about him. The old, retired bank robber suffering from a midlife crisis that gets back into the game had so much potential. Then they kind of blew it.
Michael is the only one worth a damn.
I like Trevor, but he's "le reddit legion XD!"/so wacky!!!!! character that you can't take him seriously and he's a complete psychopath to boot to where the "best ending" is pointless.
Whatever his name (the other one) is so pointless. Meant to be the Millennial fill in for GTA5, but does absolutely nothing for the plot.
They wanted to have the three GTA archetypes in one game, and also needed a character access point in all the SoCal environment types (as far as criminal dramedy goes anyway), so in that sense Franklin played a double role.
But i agree he doesn't fit within the narrative well, Michael and Trevor are linked in multiple ways, and the game would've worked just as well, if not better, by having you use Michael the whole time, with Trevor as a nemesis; but i liked the switch mechanic in itself, it was fun to jump into a new character and see what they were up to.
I wish they had given you more strategic freedom in missions, on how to position and use, the three men team.
I mean, sure. But Franklin was still pointless.
"Oh, he robs Michael's house one time and... somehow tags along for the ride."
Like if he was CJ redux (complete with following a damn train) it would've been fine. Michael and Trevor would've been one side, Franklin would've been the other/story and it'd have been completely ok. But Franklin alone? In the bigger picture? Did absolutely nothing besides be a Compton/LA stand-in and could've been axed.
Trevor and Michael could've been black or any other color if they needed "diversity" for the cast.
-
At one point in the story Franklin iirc literally disappears. Waste of a character.
-
Franklin is the only character with a good head on his shoulders
-
That may be but he's still pointless.
Tell me what he adds to Michael and Trevor's story beyond "yo, dudes, that's crazy!" and a younger (and diverse) voice.
-
Franklin is the only character with a good head on his shoulders
How?
Kid uses Michael as a mentor to become a "real" criminal lol
-
Franklin is the only character with a good head on his shoulders
How?
Kid uses Michael as a mentor to become a "real" criminal lol
He’s still the most logical of the three hands down. Who does Lester give the assassination/stock market missions to? It’s not Michael or Trevor, cause Lester knows Franklin will get the job done clean and professional.
That may be but he's still pointless.
Tell me what he adds to Michael and Trevor's story beyond "yo, dudes, that's crazy!" and a younger (and diverse) voice.
Without Franklin, Michael dies at the hands of the Chinese gang that Trevor pissed off.
-
Without Franklin, Michael dies at the hands of the Chinese gang that Trevor pissed off.
ONE (1) story point. Ah ah ah.
And really, if Mike died at the end: It'd have been better than Franklin's "yo, I'm not killing either"/"best" ending.
-
I need to get GTAV for ps4. I've only played it on ps3. :doge
-
I need to get GTAV for ps4. I've only played it on ps3. :doge
It's worth it for the first person mode.
-
When I replayed the game on ps4 I mostly played first person except for driving. Very fun, and also way more responsive.
-
I need to get GTAV for ps4. I've only played it on ps3. :doge
It's worth it for the first person mode.
It's the only way I played GTA5. #ThankYouMasterRace
Though it makes some shooting segments a little weird.
-
https://twitter.com/BastienDuke/status/1271425940745224193
:tocry
-
Yeah and the enhanced version coming 2021 means no new gta till at least 2022 2023
-
The difference? Micro transactions...
-
:shrug i mean it's not like they haven't created a shitload of new content in that time, it's just that it's not in the format we want. sucks but i understand.
-
I think the difference is the reality of HD game development and that Rockstar aims to be the top of the line in their world presentation.
Rockstar also doesn't seem to be the best managed company.
But it's not like other companies are also putting out plenty of big open world games this gen.
-
I am just getting hard with the thought of Rockstar going superhard on Next Gen with an amazing open world for GTA 6
-
Yes, current generation, AAA development is incredibly costly. If you look at what it cost them to put out GTA V versus any of the PS2-era games, it’s staggering. Having spoken with several former employees, I’m also under the impression that Rockstar focuses on near-constant crunch, driven by fascist management policies.
For most players, next gen will not be as much of a staggering visual leap as PS2 to PS3, or even that to PS4. But it won’t stop R* from throwing themselves at it at full speed.
The larger problem is looking at the difference between the RDR2 model compared to GTA V. GTAO is the beautiful misstep that worked out for everybody. The publisher made money, the players had fun, everything worked great. They overthought how to implement online for RDR two, and put limits across progress, involved multiple progress tracks and currencies, and basically made it overly confusing. Every online game fucks itself in its own ear when it decides to try and adopt the free-to-play model of multiple currencies.
Watch what happens when GTAVI comes out: it will absolutely be a cluster fuck of over optimized opportunities to fleece the player with micro transactions on multiple levels. R*definitely wants to see the same kind of overwhelming revenue stream they had with GTA Online, but they’ve already shown that they do not understand why it worked.
https://youtu.be/lHRuzARP9-U
-
Look. I get why it takes so long. Doesn't mean I have to like it!
-
At this point is GTAVI the most anticipated game of all time?
Nearly 7 years of build up. Unlike games like HL3 or Duke Nukem Forever you know it's going to happen. It's now the biggest entertainment franchise in the world arguably. The release for GTAVI will be massive for what is already a massive series.
-
Cindi, if you really want to hurt with memories of the past just remember that they did Vice City, all of it, in under a year.
Yes, current generation, AAA development is incredibly costly. If you look at what it cost them to put out GTA V versus any of the PS2-era games, it’s staggering. Having spoken with several former employees, I’m also under the impression that Rockstar focuses on near-constant crunch, driven by fascist management policies.
Yeah, how Rockstar works as a company is pretty important as to the why side of this. The GTA III trilogy was built very differently from how IV and V were. They took Renderware and built on top of that for three games. Now everything goes through San Diego's RAGE, which they've admitted was in an awful state on their side too for many years until about Max Payne 3.
Rockstar now is closer to existing as one large studio versus back then when they had multiple studios focused on multiple things, that's simply been the cost of each game expanding. They really can't let one studio go off and do a Bully now. While also producing a Midnight Club, a GTA game AND a GTA spin-off in the same year. Each of those is now a company-wide effort. RDR takes away from GTA which takes away from RDR and that's just their main two franchises. And that's with their endless crunch. Just look at who is credited on each game, now it's pretty much everyone rather than their individual studios. If an individual studio gets separately credited it's often for something like the PC port.
To compare, Ubisoft is far more outsourced and into other countries than Rockstar last I knew though Rockstar was moving in that direction like everyone. (They opened an India studio not too long ago.) Ubisoft keeps the management in the main studios and the grunt work is farmed out to thousands upon thousands of employees at their foreign studios. Rockstar is way more US/UK-centric still. That's a huge cost added that means they can't put out a game even every other year like Ubisoft does in Ass Creed.
-
New Vegas was also made within a year
Must be such a joy when you have the same engine ready to go and you get to creating content right away.
GTA V was hugely succesfull, but then there was RDR2 to develop which took a long time as well.
The PS4/XBX/PC ports were only logical, launching the normal GTA V on the cusp of a next gen transition it wouldn't make sense for GTA to be stuck on last gen. I'm sure they started pre-production of GTA 6 after the next gen launches, but was put to the side to develop RDR2.
GTA Online has been a major succes, but I don't think that R* really fucks over players to get the best stuff you can only get with microtransactions. Because most money you can earn ingame. I hope that they understand that they need to keep a great campaign, I think they will. The online part should just be GTA Online with a new city/area and heists (?) to do. It's going to be interesting to see if they keep the current model from GTA V, because it earns them millions. I don't think they would go another route with it really. That would just be shooting themselves in the feet.
-
Also remember when they had more than 2 franchises?
-
it's cool guys, all our favorite b- and c- tier franchises live on - as cameos in mobile titles :foxx
-
it's cool guys, all our favorite b- and c- tier franchises live on - as cameos in mobile titles :foxx
:tocry
-
it's cool guys, all our favorite b- and c- tier franchises live on - as cameos in mobile titles :foxx
They don't even make small games like Ping pong anymore.
-
At this point is GTAVI the most anticipated game of all time?
Nearly 7 years of build up. Unlike games like HL3 or Duke Nukem Forever you know it's going to happen. It's now the biggest entertainment franchise in the world arguably. The release for GTAVI will be massive for what is already a massive series.
Not really since 5 is still so popular and there hasn't been any whispers of 6 ever coming along so it doesn't feel like most people think or care at all about a 6.
Disagree. RDR2 hype was a preview for GTAVI hype I think. Any time GTAVI is mentioned people pay attention. Btw it hasn't even been ANNOUNCED yet just teased. It truly feels when they announce it will be the most anticipated game of all time.
-
Never but that doesnt mean they arent working on it
-
I think T2 earmarked their marketing budget to be 2-3x more than usual for 2023 in their earnings call. Usually that happens whenever a big Rockstar game is about to realease.
-
Manhunt 3 comes out this Friday baybay ;)
-
Since when has GTA 6 even been teased?
It's both official and unofficial.
There have been unofficial fake GTAVI for years and people always freak out about it.
Then there's shit like this.
https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/gaming/1237754/Grand-Theft-Auto-first-GTA-6-tease-stealth-dropped-February-4
And this.
https://screenrant.com/grand-theft-auto-6-rockstar-gta-tease-bully/
Any time there's even something GTAVI related outlets put out something about it even if it's the tiniest of straws.
https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/gta-6-grand-theft-auto-vi-setting-vice-city-rumor/
The point is, Rockstar teases and people lose their fucking minds over NOTHING. GTAVI is going to be massive.
-
I just want a Max Payne 4 and Bully 2 :goty
-
Let Max Payne be. The ending to the third game is the perfect ending. Don't ruin it by dragging this old man back by his feet.
Also, if they do bring Max back, let me fight those special OP guys again from MP1. With a cool backstory that has intrigue and people working at high levels to bring something bad about.
Not a goddamn bodyguard for Mexican druglords aka The Bodyguard but in game form.
AND LET ME SKIP THE GODDAMN CUTSCENES
-
yeah these are all clickbait articles for garbage sites