Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

HD-Era GTA's Vs III-Era GTA's

20 replies to this topic
Mister Pink
  • Mister Pink

    Boards Of Canada

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2004
  • None
  • Most Knowledgeable [Music] 2013
    Best Contributor [Music] 2012

#1

Posted 12 February 2013 - 04:21 PM Edited by ThePinkFloydSound, 12 February 2013 - 04:23 PM.

I'm a little worried about the whole GTA series in general. Last generation's GTA's were almost infallible. On the HD generation I started to see things I really didn't like or at least worried me a little. I'm not taking about SA Vs IV. I'm taking about frequency of releases and Rockstars marketing.

Let's start with IV.

IV was amazing. Graphics-wise, physics etc the game is amazing. People believe that characters were more completer or have more depth in them when comparing to San Andreas or Vice City but that's inevitable. Improved graphics is inevitable as are physics etc.

So while the series leaped forward in the technical department it took giant steps back in the fun department. Fun is subjective you may say. Sure, it is. So why was there no backlash from fans when Vice City came out or when San Andreas came out? The GTA NeXt forum before IV was announced was full of our members being optimistic and we carried on the plans of grandeur in the vain of San Andreas. Each game seemed to multiply in content. IV didn't. Not in the 'traditional' way III-era games did. IV evolved in ways that are fantastic but expected (in a sense). Fun features were stripped back, oh and the huge delay of the game coming out.

Before my post sounds completely irrelevant, my point is that people said IV had to be built from scratch. They made RAGE. The made IV on new hardware. This took time and resources. We all thought that they wont have to do this again for the next GTA. It shouldn't take them this long to make a new game. They will be familiar with the technology, the engine is made etc.

Lets go back to 2009. Episodes From Liberty City is released. It's a two part DLC. Great. It was generous as far as DLC goes but I saw this as Rockstars next GTA. At least it felt like that to me. It felt like a half-way between making a new game altogether or just making a really big DLC. I loved EFLLC but I would have much rather the resources going towards a new GTA/new city if it meant that we'd have a new game at least by 2011 (3 years development).

Now, lets got to 2011. Rockstar gives us a countdown. A countdown to the first trailer for GTA V. Trailer is released and Rockstar go quiet. It almost seemed they were never going to release V until at least 2013!? Over a year after the first trailer! Previously we'd expect the game about 6 months after a trailer. It's not like GTA is this quirky little indie game where you might release a trailer to stir up some excitement and hopefully a little viral marketing but hardcore and casual gamers a like seek out info for games like GTA. It's a monster title. Releasing a trailer so prematurely is very questionable to say the least.

Now go to 2013 and we have another delay.

So far the HD generation of GTA sucks balls immensely compared to last gen. Not because I'm being all f*cking gooey looking through my rose-tints or anything just it's crap. Not about so much the game quality but with frequency of releases and marketing.

III, VC and SA came out within 5 years release of each other.

OK, I know the cities are getting more detailed, the hardware more advanced but I can assure you so is budget for the game. You'd think in simple terms, more budget means more man-power on the job. Yes the detail goes up in the cities etc but the tools for developing are improving too. So this time should really cancel each other out if you factor in bigger budgets, in theory. I know it's not all black and white but it's just my thoughts. I don't know anything about making games but surely it still doesn't excuse how badly Rockstar seem to be handling things production-wise/marketing wise as their success grew.

Also, if you believe the info the ex-Rockstar dev gave about working on RDR, you'd think Rockstar are a bit of a joke in that sense. He said there were devs there that other companies wouldn't even take on as interns working there. The game came out great but you just imagine that if they were a bit stricter on who they hire etc you wouldn't get such delays etc. I know I'm very broadly speaking there but the ex-Rockstar guy said he had to re-do huge amounts of work this dev was doing because he was rushing through his work. They said that this guy was praised because he was fast but his work was pretty sh*te. It's OK because he was fast.

This isn't an attack on Rockstar. I love their games when they're released even if they want to move away from making video games and make interactive films as they seem to be doing. I'm just wondering if any of you guys feel a little let down by the HD generation of GTA's and how they were handled.

III-era games gave me 5 different cities on the console versions. The Xbox has been out nearly 8 years and I've only played in one city. It will be two cities closer to the end of 2013. If someone said to me in 2004 when SA was about to come out..

"Enjoy San Andreas, you'll only be getting 2 GTA's with one city in each game on the next generation of consoles."

..I'd probably laughed in their face.

Spare me the cry baby thingy. I'm just a GTA-addict that has seen the golden age of GTA come and go. V gives me a little hope but I still reckon I wont ever experience my mind being blown from the cross over that as from VC to SA. That was a huge leap. I keep chasing that high. Rockstar are still my favourite dev company. They made astonishingly layered games. Just worried about GTA sad.gif

GTAKid667
  • GTAKid667

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 24 May 2010
  • United-Kingdom
  • Most Helpful [GTA] 2013
    Contribution Award [GTA III]

#2

Posted 12 February 2013 - 04:46 PM

The First trailer being released in 2011 was the worst thing Rockstar could of done because it made fans think that Gta V would be released in 2012. Afterwards they kept quiet making fans get agitated. Then they spoon fed tiny fragments of info every so often but it wasn't enough. They released the second trailer, they gave us a Spring release and then they threw a brick at us with a September date. Everyone was up in arms as they were waiting and waiting but if you think about the time they must spend making this game it is not as long as you think. The Point is... why?

Max Payne 3 released last year. They must have been making that during some of the time. Red Dead Redemption was released in 2010. They must have spent time making that aswell so maybe they haven't been concentrating on the GTA series until 2011

QUOTE (ThePinkFloydSound @ Tuesday, Feb 12 2013, 16:21)
Lets go back to 2009. Episodes From Liberty City is released. It's a two part DLC. Great. It was generous as far as DLC goes but I saw this as Rockstars next GTA. At least it felt like that to me. It felt like a half-way between making a new game altogether or just making a really big DLC. I loved EFLLC but I would have much rather the resources going towards a new GTA/new city if it meant that we'd have a new game at least by 2011 (3 years development)


I understand you completely on the fact that the cities were the same. I believe that they should of not made EFLC. Now don't me wrong EFLC was a great DLC but maybe they should of used the time to focus on GTA V. Especially if it meant adding 'fun' features back in and having a completely new map. The Map of GTA IV was great but by the time TBOGT got released it just got boring. What Rockstar need to do is release V and make a new map instantly. Forget a RDR or MP sequel they need to focus on ONE GAME AT A TIME

cj2000
  • cj2000

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008

#3

Posted 15 February 2013 - 03:38 PM

I agre the fun factor has decreased in GTA4 and Episodes. Some people called me stupied, because I sad that HD graphic is not the most importent part of a game. I think fun is more important than HD graphic.

Andreas
  • Andreas

    GTA V/Online Forum Leader

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 27 May 2012
  • Austria
  • Best Avatar 2013
    Best New Member 2012
    Contribution Award [GTA V]

#4

Posted 15 February 2013 - 09:47 PM Edited by Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian, 16 February 2013 - 10:11 AM.

All that is more complex than it seems at the first glance. GTA IV was the first openworld game of Rockstar Games that was completely in HD on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 and Rockstar had to make over 100,000 photos of New York to create Liberty City. Back then in 2004, around three months before GTA San Andreas was released to be more accurate, EA bought Criterion, the company that created and developed the RenderWare engine which was also the engine of GTA III, Vice City and San Andreas. That must have been the time when Rockstar started to develope their own engine, the Rockstar Advanced Game Engine and Rockstar also started to work on GTA IV around the time when GTA San Andreas was released. In the end Rockstar worked around four years on GTA IV and as you might know, it took them around two years to develope San Andreas.

In August 2007 it was announced that GTA IV was pushed back from October 2007 to early 2008 and the reason for that delay were, according to some news after the release of GTA IV, the lack of storage on the Xbox 360 and the complicated programming of the PlayStation 3. Honestly, it wasn't that much of a surprise that GTA IV was pushed back, I mean the game was announced in May 2006 on E3 by Peter Moore from Microsoft and it already was announced back then that GTA IV would released in October 2007. They tried to predict a release date of a game that was still at least 16 months away so the game was doomed to be delayed. The GTA series is developed by Rockstar North in Edinburgh, Scottland. In July 2007 so only one month before GTA IV was delayed, Sony announced that Rockstar is working on a PS3 exclusive game, named Agent. The last thing we've heard about that game from Rockstar personally was in an Asked&Answered in September 2009 and when they stated that Agent could release in 2010. In May 2011, Take-Two confirmed that Agent was still in development.

Since GTA IV was pushed back from the October 2007 release date to April 2008, Midnight Club: Los Angeles was pushed back from April 2008 to October 2008 as Rockstar and Take-Two wanted to avoid releasing two AAA-titles in the same month. And since GTA IV was delayed, the add-ons The Lost and Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony were delayed as well. In February 2009 Rockstar announced Red Dead Redemption for a release in autumn 2009 while Max Payne 3 was announced one month later in March for a release in winter 2009. Both games were delayed multiple times. RDR was released in May 2010 after a 6-7 months delay and MP3 was released in May 2012 after a total delay of two and a half years. The mismanagement of the studios San Diego (RDR developer) and Vancouver (MP3 developer) were the reason for the delays. Max Payne 3 was developed across Rockstar Studios and that surely includes Rockstar North, at least to a certain extent. Red Dead Redemption was also developed by multiple Rockstar studios, not to the extent as of MP3 but still, I think it's very likely that Rockstar North was involved in it.

In September 2006 Rockstar became the publisher of L.A. Noire and they also helped Team Bondi in the development of that game. Rockstar North also was involved in the development of it as you can see here.

Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#5

Posted 16 February 2013 - 12:51 AM Edited by Miamivicecity, 16 February 2013 - 02:19 AM.

QUOTE (cj2000 @ Saturday, Feb 16 2013, 02:38)
I agre the fun factor has decreased in GTA4 and Episodes. Some people called me stupied, because I sad that HD graphic is not the most importent part of a game. I think fun is more important than HD graphic.

To be honest I find the "GTA IV is only good for graphics" argument kind of blank. Sure I like the graphics, but compared to most modern games it's nothing special graphically yet I still play it more than every other GTA so why is that if it's not the graphics that keep me coming back?

Well it's simple. I like the post 9/11 NYC theme. Others seem to hate being stuck in a concrete jungle yet it doesn't bother me one bit. There's also Niko who is the most multi dimensional protagonist in the series. There's definitely more fact in this than opinion. Compared to the others he's undeniably the most human. It's always fascinated me how GTA IV gets mixed responses yet Niko is quite popular as a protagonist.

In saying that even without talking about the story I love GTA IV's free roam. I like bowling, pool etc. I like reading the crazy articles on the in game internet and it's the only game in the series where I like to walk around the streets and get side tracked looking at every nook and cranny. I mean there's things I miss, but I don't feel GTA IV lost the fun factor at all.

It's more tailored to my interests compared when I was a younger gamer. I love this game so much even if it doesn't conform to any sort of consensus.

Linki
  • Linki

    Neonic

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2009

#6

Posted 16 February 2013 - 02:10 AM

GTAIV has lasted me longer than any other game. They could end the series and I would honestly be content with it.

Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#7

Posted 16 February 2013 - 02:20 AM

QUOTE (Linki @ Saturday, Feb 16 2013, 13:10)
GTAIV has lasted me longer than any other game. They could end the series and I would honestly be content with it.

I feel the same way. Even in the unlikely event R* cancelled GTA V I'd have no problem playing GTA IV for years to come. I'll still play it even after GTA V releases anyway.

Linki
  • Linki

    Neonic

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2009

#8

Posted 16 February 2013 - 02:23 AM

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Saturday, Feb 16 2013, 02:20)
QUOTE (Linki @ Saturday, Feb 16 2013, 13:10)
GTAIV has lasted me longer than any other game. They could end the series and I would honestly be content with it.

I feel the same way. Even in the unlikely event R* cancelled GTA V I'd have no problem playing GTA IV for years to come. I'll still play it even after GTA V releases anyway.

Plus, GTAIV feels like THE Grand Theft Auto that Rockstar always wanted to make. I think they said that as well.
It's set in the classic GTA setting of New York. It's just you, your cars and your guns against the city. It's very basic and very definitive. When I think of GTA, I think of IV.

Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#9

Posted 16 February 2013 - 02:26 AM

QUOTE (Linki @ Saturday, Feb 16 2013, 13:23)
QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Saturday, Feb 16 2013, 02:20)
QUOTE (Linki @ Saturday, Feb 16 2013, 13:10)
GTAIV has lasted me longer than any other game. They could end the series and I would honestly be content with it.

I feel the same way. Even in the unlikely event R* cancelled GTA V I'd have no problem playing GTA IV for years to come. I'll still play it even after GTA V releases anyway.

Plus, GTAIV feels like THE Grand Theft Auto that Rockstar always wanted to make. I think they said that as well.
It's set in the classic GTA setting of New York. It's just you, your cars and your guns against the city. It's very basic and very definitive. When I think of GTA, I think of IV.

Great minds think alike my friend. cool.gif

Linki
  • Linki

    Neonic

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2009

#10

Posted 16 February 2013 - 02:28 AM

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Saturday, Feb 16 2013, 02:26)
QUOTE (Linki @ Saturday, Feb 16 2013, 13:23)
QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Saturday, Feb 16 2013, 02:20)
QUOTE (Linki @ Saturday, Feb 16 2013, 13:10)
GTAIV has lasted me longer than any other game. They could end the series and I would honestly be content with it.

I feel the same way. Even in the unlikely event R* cancelled GTA V I'd have no problem playing GTA IV for years to come. I'll still play it even after GTA V releases anyway.

Plus, GTAIV feels like THE Grand Theft Auto that Rockstar always wanted to make. I think they said that as well.
It's set in the classic GTA setting of New York. It's just you, your cars and your guns against the city. It's very basic and very definitive. When I think of GTA, I think of IV.

Great minds think alike my friend. cool.gif

Right on. cool.gif

Mister Pink
  • Mister Pink

    Boards Of Canada

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2004
  • None
  • Most Knowledgeable [Music] 2013
    Best Contributor [Music] 2012

#11

Posted 19 February 2013 - 04:18 AM Edited by ThePinkFloydSound, 19 February 2013 - 04:30 AM.

Sorry guys, I didn't mean to make this thread an attack on IV. I do love IV. I was really meaning that GTA in the HD era was lacking in terms of releases. Its delay-ridden and lacking of new maps. I mean in the context of full GTA releases during the PS2's time compared to the 360's time, we're only getting 2 maps.

Going back to some of your points.

Vice City is basic and definitive too. Actually it's very thematic stylistically which is beautiful. That was my first REAL love of GTA. I mean I'd say I loved GTA when the first one came out and the second and the 3rd but Vice City was the one where the story was so important to me. Yeah Houser said Liberty City in IV was what they were trying to make originally. But, I like the basicness or the core of GTA but I also the the option to do 'X' if I want. Giving me the option to do 'X, Y & Z' and then taking it away just to give me something more basic was a step back for me.

I guess I grew to like variety. Exploring IV happened very quick. The first disappoint really came when I knew there wasn't much to explore after a short time. Also after a short time, I was a little shocked that I was going to get little or no reward for doing arguably mundane tasks (pigeons). I sill play GTA IV every now and then but I really don't know what other people do to play for so long. I've been free-roaming GTA's from the start. Rampages are boring to me now and when I got bored of SA, I went for 100% which made me love it in the end. I wanted to go for 100% in IV but I felt the rewards lacked.

IV is more like III in terms of concrete jungleness, features and it being set around present time. So I felt like I was there before. At least when III was out that sort of free-roam gaming was new. Free-roam gaming like GTA wasn't new when IV came out so for me, personally, I needed more than single city with no countryside set in familiar time settings. I needed more variety. Everything in IV was quickly discoverable and obtainable. San Andreas had more to discover and learn for me. Simply put, when I think of IV, I can only see the same images of the same buildings, concrete and concrete. When I think of SA, I think of a mountain, desert, countryside, 3 different cities. It was just easier for be to become accustomed and bored of Liberty City. There was less map to discover (even psychologically). Everywhere in IV was in a city, where people go. So there was no mysteriousness or creepiness of going out to a quiet desert, a dark wood etc. It was claustrophobic. I enjoy nice scenery in games and there was some of that IV's buildings and architecture, I much rather see some lovely landscape in-game, like big mountains, trees etc.

These are probably silly things to you guys and I don't blame you if you think I'm a stupid c*nt. Trust me. If I could love IV more, I would.

V for me is like the game that should have come out after IV. It's got the landscape, the mountains/hills and it's got the big structures (dam and buildings) and countryside/desert to contrast the concrete city.

I don't think Rockstar should ever make a smaller map than their previous one ever again.

Anyway, I completely went off the mark there. For next-gen, all I hope for is that Rockstar don't spend so long with the whatever GTA they make for future-gen. I'm all for something new. If you seen me in the lead up to IV, I was defending Niko as a character and the themes of IV. Unfortunately after spending time with Niko, Niko wasn't really badass for me. Yeah, his character might be a little more fleshed out than previous instalments but that's expected. Also, as a fan of realism in films and TV, Nikos voice actor should have been Serbian. It sounded a little bad and sounded more like a stereotype of a Russian accent than a local Serbian accent. I also heard the Serbian parts are dreadful to listen to by people from there and Eastern Europe.

Meh, see what you make me do Rockstar!?! Give me a new GTA!! Otherwise I end up making huge useless posts about sh*te!! biggrin.gif

We should have had a fresh GTA about 2 or 3 years after IV so people aren't left with just IV's map to play on for fun. At least when people were getting bored of GTA IV they could have had another GTA to look forward to. But no, I had to fall in love with a series made by a company that's incompetent at releasing anything on time. Then they have the gaul to say we could have made one every year but we decided it wouldn't be special. That's cool man. I don't want a GTA every year but one map/one city since 2007? That's f*cking sh*t! haha.

There's always going to be hardcore fans of GTA no matter what the games are like. IV produced the biggest split in the fans so far. IT has come under the biggest scrutiny from fans than any other GTA. The other GTA's aren't infallible but they didn't take a life time to come out and each one always expanded in every sense, over the last. IV evolved, got more serious and shrunk at the same time, which is why it made it different and got so much backlash.

OK. I'm drunk. Peas out.

Dick Valor
  • Dick Valor

    Cold Ass Honky

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Nov 2011

#12

Posted 20 February 2013 - 05:17 AM

@ ThePinkFloydSound

You're a stupid c*nt! tounge.gif

I kid, I kid... I respect your posts as much as I do your taste in music (assuming you do like Pink Floyd).

Overall, I agree that, with respect to time, the HD-era does trail behind the 3D-era. However, if we ignore the wait (which will be behind us in September) and include RDR (I know it's not GTA, but it's so very similar in structure/approach), I'd say the HD-era is poised to be better than the 3D-era! I know it's controversial to suggest IV is better than SA around here, but I doubt anyone would deny that it has more to offer than III. The real question is whether RDR and V are better than VC and SA... RDR v. VC is a tough call, and I think people will feel the same way comparing V and SA. For me, though, IV-RDR-V > III-VC-SA... at least, that's how I expect to feel eight months from now.

That said, nothing will ever change the fact that we got three amazing games in four years (2001-2004) during the 3D era, as opposed to three amazing games in six years (2008-2013) during the HD-era.

cj2000
  • cj2000

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008

#13

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:33 AM

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Saturday, Feb 16 2013, 00:51)
QUOTE (cj2000 @ Saturday, Feb 16 2013, 02:38)
I agre the fun factor has decreased in GTA4 and Episodes. Some people called me stupied, because I sad that HD graphic is not the most importent part of a game. I think fun is more important than HD graphic.

To be honest I find the "GTA IV is only good for graphics" argument kind of blank. Sure I like the graphics, but compared to most modern games it's nothing special graphically yet I still play it more than every other GTA so why is that if it's not the graphics that keep me coming back?

Well it's simple. I like the post 9/11 NYC theme. Others seem to hate being stuck in a concrete jungle yet it doesn't bother me one bit. There's also Niko who is the most multi dimensional protagonist in the series. There's definitely more fact in this than opinion. Compared to the others he's undeniably the most human. It's always fascinated me how GTA IV gets mixed responses yet Niko is quite popular as a protagonist.

In saying that even without talking about the story I love GTA IV's free roam. I like bowling, pool etc. I like reading the crazy articles on the in game internet and it's the only game in the series where I like to walk around the streets and get side tracked looking at every nook and cranny. I mean there's things I miss, but I don't feel GTA IV lost the fun factor at all.

It's more tailored to my interests compared when I was a younger gamer. I love this game so much even if it doesn't conform to any sort of consensus.

That just my opinion, GTA 4 has nothing realy new, except the grphics. GTA 5 seems to bring really some new things that weren't in other GTA games.

Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#14

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:55 AM

QUOTE (cj2000 @ Thursday, Feb 21 2013, 22:33)
That just my opinion, GTA 4 has nothing realy new, except the grphics. GTA 5 seems to bring really some new things that weren't in other GTA games.

I respect your opinion, but I can think of things that are new to the series were introduced in GTA IV.

Story choices. Enough said. None of the old games had this.

A proper taxi system. I'm aware of "trip skip" from VC and SA, but GTA IV completely blew it out of the water by being able to hail a taxi at any time to go anywhere.

In game internet. I suppose it could've been done better, but it was still a unique feature never used before.

Random characters. Although the missions themselves were straightforward running into character from the story in free roam was simply amazing compared to the GTA III era.

A revamped wanted system. Ok it was pretty much what was in Driver: Parallel Lines and Scarface, but compared to the wanted system used in the GTA III era it was still a massive leap.

Hell even stuff like the TV, darts, bowling, Cabaret Club, being able to go drinking, the Comedy Club were new additions. Whether people find them fun or interesting is another story, but they were/are all "new" to the series. That's not an opinion, but a fact.

As I said I respect your opinion, but when someone says GTA IV was only about graphics it underlines why I feel that generally speaking it's an incredibly underappreciated game because it's much, much more than that.

Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    Supralux (ΣΓ)

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#15

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:27 PM Edited by _____, 21 February 2013 - 12:31 PM.

IV was pretty much a masterpiece at the time of its release in my opinion. No wonder why it got perfect and near-perfect ratings.

Having more features is great, sure, but I prefer to enjoy each game in its own way. That's why I can go back to the first GTA and play it for hours and enjoy it, each game is different. If you think about all the things IV is lacking you are no longer appreciating the game the way it is and you get bored quickly. You can be a little more than just a casual gamer if you want to.

Edit: If you are complaining about 100% completion not being rewarding in the end then you are missing the point. The journey is what's more important, not the destination. Side missions should be fun things to do, not just a means to receive some sort of ingame reward.

cj2000
  • cj2000

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008

#16

Posted 25 February 2013 - 03:56 PM

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Thursday, Feb 21 2013, 11:55)
QUOTE (cj2000 @ Thursday, Feb 21 2013, 22:33)
That just my opinion, GTA 4 has nothing realy new, except the grphics. GTA 5 seems to bring really some new things that weren't in other GTA games.

I respect your opinion, but I can think of things that are new to the series were introduced in GTA IV.

Story choices. Enough said. None of the old games had this.

A proper taxi system. I'm aware of "trip skip" from VC and SA, but GTA IV completely blew it out of the water by being able to hail a taxi at any time to go anywhere.

In game internet. I suppose it could've been done better, but it was still a unique feature never used before.

Random characters. Although the missions themselves were straightforward running into character from the story in free roam was simply amazing compared to the GTA III era.

A revamped wanted system. Ok it was pretty much what was in Driver: Parallel Lines and Scarface, but compared to the wanted system used in the GTA III era it was still a massive leap.

Hell even stuff like the TV, darts, bowling, Cabaret Club, being able to go drinking, the Comedy Club were new additions. Whether people find them fun or interesting is another story, but they were/are all "new" to the series. That's not an opinion, but a fact.

As I said I respect your opinion, but when someone says GTA IV was only about graphics it underlines why I feel that generally speaking it's an incredibly underappreciated game because it's much, much more than that.

I respect your opinion to and I think it's some cind of misunderstanding, because my english is very bad. What I meand is that there is nothing new except the grphics for me which doesn't mean there is nothing else new at all. I don't care about the taxi system, because I never use it I prefere always to drive myself. I can't also understand what this game internet should be good for. Like you mentioned, some other GTA 4 features were already seen in other games and can't be realy called new. I don't want to say that GTA 4 is a bad game, it's just a mater of taste. I was a bit disapointed, because my expectations weren't foolfiled, but my expectations are not everiones expectations.
What I raly can't understand is why some people thinking that HD is something complete diferent that 3D? HD stands for High Definition and if we go 12 years back GTA 3 graphic was realy high for that time. The diference between 3D and HD is not as great as between 2D and 3D.

Andreas
  • Andreas

    GTA V/Online Forum Leader

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 27 May 2012
  • Austria
  • Best Avatar 2013
    Best New Member 2012
    Contribution Award [GTA V]

#17

Posted 27 February 2013 - 01:20 PM Edited by Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian, 27 February 2013 - 01:24 PM.

QUOTE (cj2000 @ Monday, Feb 25 2013, 16:56)
What I raly can't understand is why some people thinking that HD is something complete diferent that 3D? HD stands for High Definition and if we go 12 years back GTA 3 graphic was realy high for that time. The diference between 3D and HD is not as great as between 2D and 3D.

That is something we could argue about. The transition from 2D to 3D was a big step for the gaming industry but the effort that has to be put into the development of games and the length of the development time can't be compared to HD games. It took Rockstar Games less than a year to create GTA Vice City, probably even just a half year since the game was supposed to be a DLC for GTA III but the engine was too limited for the DLC that was going to be big, that's how Vice City began to exist as its own game. GTA San Andreas was in development for about two years, it was a big upgrade compared to past Rockstar titles and it's still the biggest Rockstar title to date when it comes to the map size. GTA IV was the probably first Grand Theft Auto game that had graphics that can be considered as 'good' compared to other games that came out around the same time. While the graphics of past GTA titles was already outdated when these games were released, GTA IV still looks good for today's standards, it aged well. GTA IV used a new engine and it was for about four years in development so twice as long as San Andreas. Red Dead Redemption and Max Payne 3 were each for over five years in development. L.A. Noire was a Team Bondi project but Rockstar was involved with that game in a few ways ever since Spring 2006 and the development of it took over seven years! It takes a much longer time to create a HD game than it takes time to create a 2D or 3D game.

I Shot The Sheriff
  • I Shot The Sheriff

    Yippie-kay-yay, motherf*cker!

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2012

#18

Posted 27 February 2013 - 05:07 PM

It should have gone like this:

-GTA IV in 2008, only 1 DLC in 2009 with TLaD and TBoGT mixed together as smaller games.
-RDR in 2010, no changes there.
-A new GTA in 2011, brand new city, improved RAGE engine, better graphics, more features, etcetera.
-LA Noire in 2012, instead of 2011.
-GTA V as we know it, in 2013.

So basically no Max Gayne 3 to make room for another GTA. Yet even then, the time span between GTAs would be 2 years, more than the average for the III era, but still much better than 5+ years.

Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#19

Posted 28 February 2013 - 05:08 AM

QUOTE (cj2000 @ Tuesday, Feb 26 2013, 02:56)
QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Thursday, Feb 21 2013, 11:55)
QUOTE (cj2000 @ Thursday, Feb 21 2013, 22:33)
That just my opinion, GTA 4 has nothing realy new, except the grphics. GTA 5 seems to bring really some new things that weren't in other GTA games.

I respect your opinion, but I can think of things that are new to the series were introduced in GTA IV.

Story choices. Enough said. None of the old games had this.

A proper taxi system. I'm aware of "trip skip" from VC and SA, but GTA IV completely blew it out of the water by being able to hail a taxi at any time to go anywhere.

In game internet. I suppose it could've been done better, but it was still a unique feature never used before.

Random characters. Although the missions themselves were straightforward running into character from the story in free roam was simply amazing compared to the GTA III era.

A revamped wanted system. Ok it was pretty much what was in Driver: Parallel Lines and Scarface, but compared to the wanted system used in the GTA III era it was still a massive leap.

Hell even stuff like the TV, darts, bowling, Cabaret Club, being able to go drinking, the Comedy Club were new additions. Whether people find them fun or interesting is another story, but they were/are all "new" to the series. That's not an opinion, but a fact.

As I said I respect your opinion, but when someone says GTA IV was only about graphics it underlines why I feel that generally speaking it's an incredibly underappreciated game because it's much, much more than that.

I respect your opinion to and I think it's some cind of misunderstanding, because my english is very bad. What I meand is that there is nothing new except the grphics for me which doesn't mean there is nothing else new at all. I don't care about the taxi system, because I never use it I prefere always to drive myself. I can't also understand what this game internet should be good for. Like you mentioned, some other GTA 4 features were already seen in other games and can't be realy called new. I don't want to say that GTA 4 is a bad game, it's just a mater of taste. I was a bit disapointed, because my expectations weren't foolfiled, but my expectations are not everiones expectations.
What I raly can't understand is why some people thinking that HD is something complete diferent that 3D? HD stands for High Definition and if we go 12 years back GTA 3 graphic was realy high for that time. The diference between 3D and HD is not as great as between 2D and 3D.

Fair enough, but I just wanted to say it does have more than just graphics. I'm actually 30 hours into my current save and I'm about 40 missions away from the end.

To me this game is simply phenominal. smile.gif

cj2000
  • cj2000

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008

#20

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:21 PM

QUOTE (Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian @ Wednesday, Feb 27 2013, 13:20)
QUOTE (cj2000 @ Monday, Feb 25 2013, 16:56)
What I raly can't understand is why some people thinking that HD is something complete diferent that 3D? HD stands for High Definition and if we go 12 years back GTA 3 graphic was realy high for that time. The diference between 3D and HD is not as great as between 2D and 3D.

That is something we could argue about. The transition from 2D to 3D was a big step for the gaming industry but the effort that has to be put into the development of games and the length of the development time can't be compared to HD games. It took Rockstar Games less than a year to create GTA Vice City, probably even just a half year since the game was supposed to be a DLC for GTA III but the engine was too limited for the DLC that was going to be big, that's how Vice City began to exist as its own game. GTA San Andreas was in development for about two years, it was a big upgrade compared to past Rockstar titles and it's still the biggest Rockstar title to date when it comes to the map size. GTA IV was the probably first Grand Theft Auto game that had graphics that can be considered as 'good' compared to other games that came out around the same time. While the graphics of past GTA titles was already outdated when these games were released, GTA IV still looks good for today's standards, it aged well. GTA IV used a new engine and it was for about four years in development so twice as long as San Andreas. Red Dead Redemption and Max Payne 3 were each for over five years in development. L.A. Noire was a Team Bondi project but Rockstar was involved with that game in a few ways ever since Spring 2006 and the development of it took over seven years! It takes a much longer time to create a HD game than it takes time to create a 2D or 3D game.

You already mentioned a very important factor for GTA 4, the new engine. I dont know where you got the information, that R* dveloped GTA 4 4 years. But even if they realy spent 4 years for GTA 4 development, I am quite shure the most of that time they spent for developing the engine.

Mister Pink
  • Mister Pink

    Boards Of Canada

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2004
  • None
  • Most Knowledgeable [Music] 2013
    Best Contributor [Music] 2012

#21

Posted 05 March 2013 - 02:44 PM Edited by ThePinkFloydSound, 05 March 2013 - 05:56 PM.

QUOTE (_____ @ Thursday, Feb 21 2013, 13:27)
Edit: If you are complaining about 100% completion not being rewarding in the end then you are missing the point. The journey is what's more important, not the destination. Side missions should be fun things to do, not just a means to receive some sort of ingame reward.


OK, while I agree about the "its the journey, not the destination" sentiment, it's not so black and white in relation to gaming and GTA.

Tagging Up Turf:
QUOTE
Spraying over an enemy tag increases the player's respect and respraying all 100 tags is required for 100% completion. The reward for finishing the work with this collectible are the weapons Molotov Cocktail, AK-47, Sawn-off Shotgun and TEC 9 delivered to the kitchen at the Johnson House, and Grove Street gang members will start to carry Desert Eagles, MP5s and knives instead of the usual pistol and TEC 9.
- This addition, your gang start to carry better weapons as you get respect is a great reward. It's also a 100% requirement so if I was going to get 100% I may as well be rewarded for doing so. Rewards give purpose. They give drive. I wouldn't go tagging up turf 100 times because it counts for 100%/bragging rights.

Horseshoes:
QUOTE
Altogether, there are fifty horseshoes across the city. The reward for collecting all Horseshoes is four weapons spawn at The Four Dragons Casino on the south end of The Strip: MP5, Satchel Charges, SPAS 12 and M4.Also your luck maxes.


Let's face it. Finding all these collectibles is tedious. People do them because of reward and/or 100% completion. I don't think anyone went around collecting clams because it was fun. It was difficult and people pulled their hair over collectibles they may have missed.

For 200 pigeons in IV, a helicopter spawns in Algonquin. Really. It's not an incentive for me to get 100%. It's tedious and the reward is crap.

When I got 100% in San Andreas it was because I completed the story a few times and rampages were starting to get boring. I went for 100%. I loved it. Some missions were hard as f*ck like the driving school missions. But I got all gold in the driving school and I got a purple Hot Rod out of it that parks outside. It made it worth while. If you want to argue that rewards should be taken out because it's about the journey and not the destination then I think you'll find it hard for people to agree. You may as well take all the rewards out of the game altogether. It's very simple.

It's not just about the 100% reward. It's the fact that I love playing GTA and when I ran out of things to do in SA, I took on the mammoth task of completing all the side missions and challenges to get 100%. There was a decent enough 100% prize but completing most of the side missions gave you mini rewards. There wasn't much of that in IV at all. Not that it would suit the theme of the game either. It wouldn't make sense if Niko had all these rewards when he's supposed to be just scraping by. But then why make an action game based on a rags to slightly better rags story in the first place when the previous title indulged in rewarding the player for completing the more mundane tasks. If you didn't get cash in that game, you'd get respect. If you didn't get respect, it was a gift from a girlfriend or a plane at your hanger or weapons at your house or the casino you stayed in.

At it's not just a means to receive a reward but tell me you are on your 70th tag or 150th pigeon and that you are just doing it for fun.

And why build a game series that generally favoured a decent rewards system only to take it away and make lacklustre and unfuffilling rewards. GTA was doing fine. Nobody complained about lack of this or that in the III era. Even the GTA Next forum was generally full of inspiring and grand ideas. IV changed the format that people loved. They made the game more restrictive. Yes, they improved on heaps of other stuff but that's a given.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users