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