GTA V

[GMT 389]

Rockstar did it again, with the michael-franklin-trevor trailer!

it's actually 3 trailers at once so one might say R* put the bar another notch higher in terms of PR

[Kifflom112 355]

Man what a gorgeous trailer. So many cars unveiled or completely shown off, the landscape looks amazing! I'm still tripping out about the cars though, here is a thread on GTAForum's identifying them:

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=532469&st=2360&#entry1062438159

[GMT 389]

yeah R* certainly has a nice hand for vehicle design and presentation

and, maybe it's just me, but I feel like they sound much more convincing than they did in the IV series where they sounded extremely flat even on highend speaker systems...

[Kifflom112 355]

Indeed the cars did sound flat and unexciting. I have surround sound, even with B&W speakers, and the sound emitted from the cars is just so plain. But in V, it sounds the way it should. Let's just hope they don't drive bad. IV's handling was fine, it just needed better grip, no traction control, and a better sense of speed.

 

Today, we got a lot of info revealed and I am so hyped, the most hyped I've been since the summer of '12.

Here are some new cars revealed that have been parodied:

• Bugatti Veyron SuperSport
• Mercedes SLS AMG Roadster/Jaguar F-Type(It's in-game name is the Benefactor Surano)
• Mitsubishi Eclipse
• '67 Pontiac GTO

It's just so awesome! I hope that Surano comes as a coupe too.

 

But that's not all. Remember how property purchase wasn't included back in November? Now it is, and you can buy marina's, garages, houses, even businesses.

Then we have car customization similar to MCLA. This is just so great.

[GMT 389]

I really hope the car's weight against the suspension isn't modeled as overscaled as it is in IV, it really looks stupid when your car tilts like 45° with all 4 on the ground prior to skidding away...

 

this video, even tho it's just talk and still pictures, sums up all the bazillions of may 2nd previews, and god it's crazy. this game is offically crazy. crazy crazy crazy. CRAZY!

 

I really love the customization features they put (back) into game:

Character customization includes clothing, haircuts, and tattoos

Character skills/stats that can be improved

Special skills: Franklin - Slow-Mo Driving Trevor - Frenzy mode, double damage (think adrenaline) Michael - Bullet time

HUD includes bars for health, armor, and special skills. Radar is similar to a 3D GPS display. There is also a "sound cone" showing how much noise you make, which attracts enemy attention

Vehicle customization at Pay 'n' Sprays is extensive, close to Midnight Club, INCLUDING PERFORMANCE

Weapon customization includes clips, scopes, and flashlights

Buying businesses and real estate to make more money

Actually plan out heist missions

 

San Andreas - the awesome it is - looks like a small child against V.

Truely their biggest game ever!

[LexusInfernus 908]

Im kind of scared of this game. At the one hand it looks awesome. But all GTA games look awesome. And based on that, I would buy it, along with the string of positive reviews praising it into the skies. But at the same time, despite the beauty of the game, Ive always had a problem with the actual gameplay. And each time they tell me that the gameplay is so much better, and each time I fall for it, and each time the gameplay remains annoying at best. But I also don't want to miss out on a game everyone will talk about. Dillema, dillema. 

[GMT 389]

I never really had problems with the gameplay. well, yes compared to playing with a pad, playing with mouse/keyboard sort of doesn't rock.

and every now and then mission design doesn't feel too good but then again, it's still better than in 99.9% of all other games.

 

but since GTA is the perfect example why the world is supposed to be the actual star in an open world game, like the landscape is the actual star in a wild-west movie, gameplay always comes 2nd to me and as long as it isn't screwed like it is in Sleeping Dogs (got it, played through it, got rid of it; just thinking of the car-handling sends shivers down my spine) I really can think of worse problems with the game...

 

I must be honest, I've read every article I could understand in terms of language, especially since I knew that the setting will be Los Santos, which I hoped for altho doubted in in first place because I thought R* won't be SO obsessed with LA to release 3 LA themed games in a short time (MCLA, LA Noire and now V) and since every article praises the lord out of this game and the list of features reads like a gaming dream come true I honestly doubt this game won't live up to its hype or fail due to the gameplay, which also reads like R* finally listened

[LexusInfernus 908]

Meh, my biggest problems are exactly with the world. Though it is nice to have an open world and all, during missions it usually proved to be extremely annoying, forcing you to go from one end of the map to the other. And if you died or failed the mission for some reason, guess what. You could drive all the way back to where the mission started, then drive all the way back to where the mission actually takes place. That's okay if the open world map is still relatively compressed, but in the maps R* has been making for GTA, it can take quite a while to drive all that way. I find it annoying because at the one hand it forces me to start driving like a maniac, just so I can start the damn mission already, which is to bad because I kinda like to role play, which takes time. And if it happens once, okay, I can get over that, but there are missions that I had to do over several times and after the third or fourth time doing this big mission and then just failing it at the last moment forcing you to redo what is easily 15-25 minutes of gameplay from scratch it gets to be infuriating. Which then of course makes me want to cheat through the game so I can just avoid spending a whole day worth of gaming on a single mission. 

 

Especially late game GTA's start to suffer heavily from this, as they usually start out small but gradually get bigger and bigger and where the final missions just make a point out of sending you from one end of the map to the exact opposite end of the map. 

 

I will get this game if there are in mission check points so that if I die, I don't have to start from scratch again all the time. 

[Dashafrash. 34]

Michael sort of reminds me of a mole-less Robert de Niro. Though his voice is pretty annoying in my opinion.

I can't wait for this game. I've just been playing Red Dead Redemption and GTA IV over and over. I can't take much more.

[GMT 389]

Meh, my biggest problems are exactly with the world. Though it is nice to have an open world and all, during missions it usually proved to be extremely annoying, forcing you to go from one end of the map to the other. And if you died or failed the mission for some reason, guess what. You could drive all the way back to where the mission started, then drive all the way back to where the mission actually takes place. That's okay if the open world map is still relatively compressed, but in the maps R* has been making for GTA, it can take quite a while to drive all that way. I find it annoying because at the one hand it forces me to start driving like a maniac, just so I can start the damn mission already, which is to bad because I kinda like to role play, which takes time. And if it happens once, okay, I can get over that, but there are missions that I had to do over several times and after the third or fourth time doing this big mission and then just failing it at the last moment forcing you to redo what is easily 15-25 minutes of gameplay from scratch it gets to be infuriating. Which then of course makes me want to cheat through the game so I can just avoid spending a whole day worth of gaming on a single mission. 

 

Especially late game GTA's start to suffer heavily from this, as they usually start out small but gradually get bigger and bigger and where the final missions just make a point out of sending you from one end of the map to the exact opposite end of the map. 

 

I will get this game if there are in mission check points so that if I die, I don't have to start from scratch again all the time. 

 

you do know that you can skip the part where you have to go back to the mission starter?

but you're sort of right, the distances to cover are often pretty high and this might take quite a while.

I prefer it that way tho, adds to the realism and helps to get in touch with the map a bit better.

[LexusInfernus 908]

you do know that you can skip the part where you have to go back to the mission starter?

but you're sort of right, the distances to cover are often pretty high and this might take quite a while.

I prefer it that way tho, adds to the realism and helps to get in touch with the map a bit better.

 

Yeah, that helps a bit, but not much. I remember the bank heist mission in GTA IV, I almost finished it, I just couldn't escape the cops fast enough, they destroyed my car and I had to redo the whole damn thing. And that was after getting shot several times before I even reached the point where I had to get a car and drive away. After that I got tired and never touched the game again. 

 

And I only finished San Andreas with immortality cheats, so I didnt have to do huge swats all over again. Also annoying that every time you died you lost all your weapons,and you would have to find/buy them all over again. So yeah, Im going to see if they fixed these things this time. 

[GMT 389]

the bank heist mission had checkpoints. I failed plenty a time during the getaway and never had to run through the entire mission again.

 

well, don't expect too many changes here. maybe more checkpoints on the longer missions but the best you would beyond that is that the skipping thing is back so you don't have to get to the mission starter yourself again.
everything else wouldn't make sense as the route from mission starter to the actual mission has always been part of the mission design and story telling and has been enhanced in IV with different dialoges per try.

 

Other than that I think you should reconsider you gameplay style

sounds like you always run around, guns blazing away at everything moving.

I barely die. tbh, I died more in SA than I did in IV because IV has - comapred to SA - a sophisticated cover system I utilize permanently during gun fights...

over the titles, GTA has become much more tactical in terms of gunfights and if the impression delivered through the latest previews is true, this level is increased once more. all articles I've read so far (which is an insane 27 through all the languages I understand) agree on the fact that shootouts are much better and more complex, to a point comparable to max payne 3.

[Kifflom112 355]

More news today. We can buy cars now. I hope this comes with benefits like if your car gets left or destroyed it'll respawn at the place it was last saved.

[VanGioRobNelli 29]

I like the GTA series for the realism and the fact that if you do mess up a mission, well guess what?  You gotta restart it over. 

 

Maybe the could incorporate 2 modes of play- an "easy" mode for people who want checkpoints and then another "realistic" mode where it is like the old gameplay. 

 

But this just spurns a whole other discussion about game evolution over the past 30 years...  More and more gamers want instant gratification and "failproof" missions /checkpoints that make the game easier.  Change your tactics fools.

[SpookyZalost 39]

you know of all the GTA games I think GTA II is my favorite, it's probably the only GTA game that has real elements of cyberpunk and dystopian futures in it, from the crazy ziabatsu crime syndicates, to the mad scientists, even the insane asylum gang it's awesome! I wish they would do a 3D updated remaike or at least a game based on GTA II heh, after that san andreas is my 2nd favorite.

[Rufus Honker IV 100]

I played halfway through 4, but was getting annoyed by repeated calls from people I didn't want to hang out with.  Eventually I stopped playing.

 

V looks beautiful, but I don't like the idea of having to play different people.

 

Yeah, I know.  Picky-picky.  I just want another Vice City, which was the best since III, IMHO.

[Kifflom112 355]

I played halfway through 4, but was getting annoyed by repeated calls from people I didn't want to hang out with.  Eventually I stopped playing.

 

V looks beautiful, but I don't like the idea of having to play different people.

 

Yeah, I know.  Picky-picky.  I just want another Vice City, which was the best since III, IMHO.

In my opinion that's kind of absurd. All you had to do was disable the phone so that nobody could call/text you. And when you're finished with all of the missions, people will call you less and less. I've played through multiple in game days just free roaming, yet nobody called.

 

Anyways, I thought IV was a wonderful game. Liberty City was one of the best interpretations of New York in a video game, with so much detail I mean just look at my thread on a different forum to see how diverse and detailed IV was: http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=536703&st=0

 

Loved IV. Hopefully V will be better, but I can see why you don't really agree with the three protag junk. I'm not hyped about that either, I'd rather just play as Michael the whole game.

[GMT 389]

I'll probably focus on one player aswell, at least as long as it's possible to do so... who knows, maybe one takes a bullet to the soft parts and quits or something, R* always has a fetish for such twists.

But on second thought I guess R* would make it worth our while to switch between protags even outside of the missions, my bet is you get other sidekicks and o/c a different look at the lore when playing with other characters... I can see Frankyboy gettin repo-missions as sidequests while that nutjob Trevor has to take care of his morally questionable enterprise just when Michael has to beat the crap out of another San Andreas sunnyboy tryin to mess with his daughter

 

EDIT: and don't worry about the level of replicated detail, there's already bazillions of buildings identified, R* stays true to itself here; we'll get the usual quality so it's gonna be the best LA metro depiction ever

[FreewayofFlight 41]

I liked San Andreas because I could travel from one part of the 'state' to the other. That's the only reason I got it, lol.

[GMT 389]

I liked San Andreas because I could travel from one part of the 'state' to the other. That's the only reason I got it, lol.

not the reason I got it, neither the reason I love it, but definitely the reason it's the best GTA out there imho.

no matter which open world city game I play, it always freaks me out when there's no backdrop. I'm fine with a little, there's no need for excessive woodlands, farmlands, wastelands but paaaleeeeaaaaseeee, don't let the scenery end with the last consecutive row of houses, it just feels so entirely wrong.

 

anyways, R* just threw out another 4 screenshots to quench our thirst for more V

[GMT 389]

what? nobody going nuts over the intentional leak of the Los Santos map within the pre-order announcement?

 

someone took a real good effort to piece together what R* offered:

[Kifflom112 355]

what? nobody going nuts over the intentional leak of the Los Santos map within the pre-order announcement?

Venture over to GTAForums, people are going nuts. I was overall disappointed with the size of Los Santos. It looks like Algonquin, Dukes, and Broker together. It's smaller than it's predecessor and that is somewhat unacceptable. And maybe I would be a little less disappointed if it was designed better. Just look at how pathetically small East Los Santos is. Look how close those northeastern suburbs are to Vinewood Boulevard, and just look at the ridiculous placement of Vinewood. Since when is Hollywood to the east of downtown? I know this is a parody but come on.

[GMT 389]

I'm a bit disappointed too, could've had more sprawl, but this would also work against gameplay really fast. take a look at True Crime LA or LA Noire. Scale accurate but boring as hell (LA Noire not so much tho)

but then again, if you try to get the scales matching, you end up with LS being as big as all 3 cities in SA combined, which is quite a lot. plus all the surounding landscape, figures are that LS takes about 1/3 of the map only and it is quite clear that R* has put the focus on the "surounding countryside".

 

and after all I prefer quality over quantity really. what good is a 400mi² map like in Just Cause 2 when it is really just boring repetitiveness of greenery?

[GMT 389]

there aint that much going on in terms of gta campaigns at the moment...

but, I came across this picture here a few days ago and it's pretty much a nutshell of all my feelings about GTA V:

[LexusInfernus 908]

I rather have a smaller city than a gigantic sprawl. Small means I get to be more connected to it, like know the entire city by heart, know where everything is located, without relying to heavily on GPS or the map. Also, a smaller city does mean they can put more detail in. 

[GMT 389]

I prefer quality over quantity aswell but since R* is a quality-sureshot, I dare to complain about quantity

I just hoped for a tad more (sub)urban sprawl around Los Santos as it's rl-counterpart is a perfect example thereof.

The city looks very condensed to me both from the screenshots/videos and the known map. To the south there ain't much left besides the remaining parts of the airport and GTA's take on Terminal Island. To the north there's basically just the one hill missing where the Vinewood sign sits, plus the city limits corresponding to the Glendale area just off I5 irl which ain't that much either.

LS is big of course, considerably big, I'm guessing it the size of the entire IV map which makes the land-area about a quarter bigger than Liberty and with the enormous detailing we've seen so far it'll feel as big as it possibly can.

Yet I hoped for some more LA-ish sprawl, a few more roads of planned communities here, a bit more same-looking flattop industrials there... you know, along the lines of the design of Las Venturas which caught the Vegas-sprawl pretty well.

 

But as long as there ain't too many areas around the entire map that have no purpose except their existance I'm very happy.

Just played San Andreas again and I'm always a bit disappointed by the amount of cool places across the map that you actually never get to see except you go there yourself, not to mention all the "useless" things aka places that exist but you can't interact in any way with. Just think of Octane Springs and the adjecent refinery. Jacking oil/fuel transports, blowing it up to annoy some mafia pal, acquiring it... they could've done so much with it yet it just sits there. empty and dead.

I hope such things are over or at least dramatically reduced with the new game. It's already enough to make such places alife with npc roaming around doing their thing.

[simcityplayer15 33]

Maaan I hope we can blow up buildings! Other than that, its a very nice game 

[GMT 389]

nope you can't unless it is scripted into the mission design.

dynamic destruction won't work too well in an open-world game cuz at a certain point, you've destroyed everything and what then?

It's easier to implement in narrow-bodied worlds like shooters where you play like "been there, blew that up, went on", but even here, there's technical limits because a goodlooking dynamic change to the level design lies beyond playability yet, even tho we're slowly getting there (cough frostbite 3 engine cough)

 

maybe, somewhere down the road, we get it in other genres aswell.

[GMT 389]

R* has released the first gameplay video and I wish I could say something but in fact, I'm speechless. I can't frame words around what I've seen just now....
 

[KevinPaul06 57]

What GTAIV lacks..........MINIGAMES!