Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

RDR Kill Effect

102 replies to this topic
EvilFuture
  • EvilFuture

    To Harm and Withhold™

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012
  • None

#61

Posted 09 July 2013 - 10:53 PM

QUOTE (Doublepulse @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 22:48)
I think regardless how much some of us bitch and complain, a lot of us are still gonna buy the game and enjoy every damn minute of it. I am surprised the OP noticed this. Its something I never really noticed consciously when playing RDR, but I can see how it makes the kill feel more "awesome". I had that feeling that it was suppose to feel like the recoil from the gun.

Small things like this are effective, but I feel if they are good, we won't take notice to it and just accept it, but we get the feel from it.

I don't know where else I am going with this.. But I can say for me, it looks great.

Did anyone also know that small fraction of a second when Franklin was changing weapons, there was a slow motion? It is a different thing, but I feel it kept the smooth feeling in an appealing way and they are small visual effects to keep the action appealing.

That's another thing, people are saying the time slowing thing when we select the weapon wheel was a bad thing...

How would that be a bad thing? It gives you time to get another weapon without getting a bullet through your brain.

man dragon
  • man dragon

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2012

#62

Posted 09 July 2013 - 10:56 PM

I'd rather one new GTA that feels completely new and different, than 3 new GTAs that feel samey.

Lil_B_The Basedgod
  • Lil_B_The Basedgod

    f*ck the mods

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2013
  • None

#63

Posted 09 July 2013 - 10:58 PM

Lol I'm adding Brian. To my disrespect list.

EvilFuture
  • EvilFuture

    To Harm and Withhold™

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012
  • None

#64

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:02 PM

QUOTE (man dragon @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 22:56)
I'd rather one new GTA that feels completely new and different, than 3 new GTAs that feel samey.

This. icon14.gif I like the direction GTA is going. If it stayed the same with every release... *cough* COCK COD *cough* then it would get boring and eventually nobody would play it. Sometimes change is good.

Pantera2198
  • Pantera2198

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2008

#65

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:04 PM

Whatever !... leave dude to his opinion.

Personally I havn't had a game since FarCry 3 earn my 60$
and just can not wait for something massive like this.

I didn't even like what I seen with MP3,or how The Last Of Us turned out.
This will be my first true game that I will be able to submerse my self in.

I can't complain about the small stuff cause all the big things are in this game.
The only thing I CAN say negatively is that I want bother with some of the Yoga
bicycle filler...but this game is absolutley brilliant.


Lostpride
  • Lostpride

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2012

#66

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:12 PM

QUOTE (KFranchise @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 22:42)
I just hope the enemies will actually DIE, instead of them being on the floor screaming DON'T KILL ME, PLEASE!

After serving two tours in Iraq I can tell you that a majority of shots that lethally put someone down usually do not kill them for several minutes (luckily I never had to fire at anyone). I sat by an injured combatant that had been hit in the upper torso 6 times by 7.62×51mm - both lungs. Lived for almost 15 minutes.

I personally hope after a huge massacre a majority will still be alive, but downed and bleeding out. There's always more injured than dead.

ugotsmoked
  • ugotsmoked

    I DON'T GIVE A F*CK WHAT YOU THINK.

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2010
  • None

#67

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:15 PM

That's why I double tap to the head with the Striker shotgun...no questions asked.

EvilFuture
  • EvilFuture

    To Harm and Withhold™

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012
  • None

#68

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:18 PM

QUOTE (ugotsmoked @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 23:15)
That's why I double tap to the head with the Striker shotgun...no questions asked.

lol speaking of shotguns, I hope that the AA-12 back, but without explosive bullets. I used one on TBoGT multiplayer that didn't have explosive bullets and it kicked ass. I never could find one in singleplayer though sad.gif Let's hope that changes. Maybe instead of certain guns having explosive bullets, we can make any gun have explosive bullets, do to customization (changing what type of bullets we want)

brian.
  • brian.

    Possible Descendant Of Kraff

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012

#69

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:34 PM Edited by brian., 09 July 2013 - 11:38 PM.

Yea, I will undoubtedly add this game to my steam collection, spend anywhere from 80 to 150 hours in it, enjoy, find it to be totally awesome and grow accustomed to the vast amount of changes made between a single release, but I will always feel like it changes far too much too quickly yet too far too long in terms of time between releases to do so.

Let me explain this:

GTA would be like this in 2013 no matter what. Right? It would be like this, because it is like this, it is what it is.

Are you guys trying to say that it was WORTH waiting 6 years to play this game when you could have played 2 other GTAs in the meantime, and still ended up here, got all this change over time, instead of out of nowhere and after 6 long years? Think about it - the end result for GTA 2013 could have been the same, but there also could have been some more between this and IV to make it feel right.

You guys see where I am coming from? It's not like I'm going to blast off stock and wash my hands, but man, it was way out of left field to see this much "changed" as opposed to "improved upon". I suppose they just got bored waiting for whoever has been holding them up since the initial release date and went to town on the core tounge.gif

EvilFuture
  • EvilFuture

    To Harm and Withhold™

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012
  • None

#70

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:36 PM

QUOTE (brian. @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 23:34)
Yea, I will undoubtedly add this game to my steam collection, spend anywhere from 80 to 150 hours in it, enjoy, find it to be totally awesome and grow accustomed to the vast amount of changes made between a single release, but I will always feel like it changes far too much too quickly yet too far too long in terms of time between releases to do so.

Let me explain this:

GTA would be like this in 2013 no matter what. Right? It would be like this, because it is like this, it is what it is.

Are you guys trying to say that it was WORTH waiting 6 years to play this game when you could have played 2 other GTAs in the meantime, and still ended up here, got all this change over time, instead of out of nowhere and after 6 long years? Think about it - the end result for GTA 2013 could have been the same, but there also could have been some more between this and IV to make it feel right.

You guys see where I am coming from?

Not really... I think the 6 years was WELL worth it.

TheKrigeron
  • TheKrigeron

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 May 2013

#71

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:41 PM

QUOTE (brian. @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 21:48)
Oh, okay, I see that now. Those hitmarkers though. I'm shaking my fist, angrily. I hope they can be turned off.

QUOTE
My god, I hope you're joking...


I most certainly am serious as a heart attack.

They changed way too much in 6 years it is taking (GTA IV was supposed to release in 2007, it's now 2013, so 6 years I guess) - square radar, three protags, cars took a step toward backward and corny with burnout like results, special abilities, regenerating health, weird screen effects, hitmarkers, weapon wheel, EVERYTHING has changed and I haven't even listed it all, you can name 10 things that I haven't.

Everything that made GTA different and elegant compared to other games, is now gone, replaced by stuff that I've seen in other games and didn't like. What happened? I don't know. Will it be different? Completely different, yes. Will it be good? Maybe.

For this much change, I needed at least 2 gta's between IV and V to get there, this is too much change all at once, even for me, who has supported everything rockstar does, and this much change from one gta, is shocking to say the least. The series has evolved over time, and has comfortably done so, and now this, this is a huge leap, like a reboot, like a whole different company is making it or something - too much change man. Will it be great? Maybe. But they definitely should have done this slower, or called it something else.

Make a thread about it, you're going off-topic here

OT: Funny that you mention it, I was playing RDR earlier and I was wondering why shooting someone felt way better than IV, now I see (Albeit the simple Reticule and the Muthaf*ckin Revolvers have something to do withh it aswell biggrin.gif )

brian.
  • brian.

    Possible Descendant Of Kraff

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012

#72

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:43 PM

QUOTE (gtafreak10 @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 19:36)
QUOTE (brian. @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 23:34)
Yea, I will undoubtedly add this game to my steam collection, spend anywhere from 80 to 150 hours in it, enjoy, find it to be totally awesome and grow accustomed to the vast amount of changes made between a single release, but I will always feel like it changes far too much too quickly yet too far too long in terms of time between releases to do so.

Let me explain this:

GTA would be like this in 2013 no matter what. Right? It would be like this, because it is like this, it is what it is.

Are you guys trying to say that it was WORTH waiting 6 years to play this game when you could have played 2 other GTAs in the meantime, and still ended up here, got all this change over time, instead of out of nowhere and after 6 long years? Think about it - the end result for GTA 2013 could have been the same, but there also could have been some more between this and IV to make it feel right.

You guys see where I am coming from?

Not really... I think the 6 years was WELL worth it.

So you are going to tell me, with a straight face:

"I am fine with 6 years wait. I would not have preferred, say, Vice City with half of these changes by 2010 or 2011, and then GTA V now with the rest of the changes we are now instead seeing for the first time"

You're telling me, you would not rather watch it evolve and see it get better and better, you'd rather just not see a new GTA in 6 years and see it all at once? Rather than, you know, like I said above?

I'm not dissing you or anything, I'm just making perfectly sure: You'd be totally fine if all there was, was "GTA III" and "GTA IV", and VC and SA never came out? Cause that's basically what all of this is saying, right? That instead of the game getting better and better, "what will they do next", you'd rather chum about it in the forums and wait for it while it completely reinvents wheels it was already turning better than anyone else?

it boggles my mind dudebro tounge.gif <3

Monty Mantis
  • Monty Mantis

    Resident F*ckin' Professional

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 May 2013

#73

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:46 PM

QUOTE (brian. @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 16:43)
QUOTE (gtafreak10 @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 19:36)
QUOTE (brian. @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 23:34)
Yea, I will undoubtedly add this game to my steam collection, spend anywhere from 80 to 150 hours in it, enjoy, find it to be totally awesome and grow accustomed to the vast amount of changes made between a single release, but I will always feel like it changes far too much too quickly yet too far too long in terms of time between releases to do so.

Let me explain this:

GTA would be like this in 2013 no matter what. Right? It would be like this, because it is like this, it is what it is.

Are you guys trying to say that it was WORTH waiting 6 years to play this game when you could have played 2 other GTAs in the meantime, and still ended up here, got all this change over time, instead of out of nowhere and after 6 long years? Think about it - the end result for GTA 2013 could have been the same, but there also could have been some more between this and IV to make it feel right.

You guys see where I am coming from?

Not really... I think the 6 years was WELL worth it.

So you are going to tell me, with a straight face:

"I am fine with 6 years wait."

Yes, this is exactly what we are saying. Quality > quantity, I'd rather have a steak every week than a McDonald's burger every Tuesday.

EvilFuture
  • EvilFuture

    To Harm and Withhold™

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012
  • None

#74

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:54 PM

QUOTE (brian. @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 23:43)
QUOTE (gtafreak10 @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 19:36)
QUOTE (brian. @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 23:34)
Yea, I will undoubtedly add this game to my steam collection, spend anywhere from 80 to 150 hours in it, enjoy, find it to be totally awesome and grow accustomed to the vast amount of changes made between a single release, but I will always feel like it changes far too much too quickly yet too far too long in terms of time between releases to do so.

Let me explain this:

GTA would be like this in 2013 no matter what. Right? It would be like this, because it is like this, it is what it is.

Are you guys trying to say that it was WORTH waiting 6 years to play this game when you could have played 2 other GTAs in the meantime, and still ended up here, got all this change over time, instead of out of nowhere and after 6 long years? Think about it - the end result for GTA 2013 could have been the same, but there also could have been some more between this and IV to make it feel right.

You guys see where I am coming from?

Not really... I think the 6 years was WELL worth it.

So you are going to tell me, with a straight face:

"I am fine with 6 years wait. I would not have preferred, say, Vice City with half of these changes by 2010 or 2011, and then GTA V now with the rest of the changes we are now instead seeing for the first time"

Actually, that's exactly what I would tell you with a straight face.

Games back in those days didn't take as much time and resources as games do now. The textures were extremely low quality, the sound effects sucked, the graphics sucked... games aren't like that anymore, of course it's going to take longer to develop.

Monty Mantis made a really good point. A steak every week sounds more appealing than McDonalds every day.

brian.
  • brian.

    Possible Descendant Of Kraff

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012

#75

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:28 AM Edited by brian., 10 July 2013 - 12:37 AM.

So... you would be okay if VC and SA never existed? Because that's basically what you're saying.

Food? Okay, you'd rather eat only once every 6 days, but it's a new taste you may or may not like every time, you'd rather that, over eating 3 or 4 times a week the sustenance you need just to make it to the point your people can eat 5 or 6 days a week next?

Think it over - I know it's worded strangely lol tounge.gif

You'd rather have sex with a new girl once every six years than bang the same fun and awesome chick and do more and have fun and stuff?

You'd really rather GTA VI come out in 6 years from now? Is it because that implies, for our hopes, that GTA V will be so good, we will play it for 6 years and not want more until they are ready to delay another one? We won't need a new one until 2020?

Let me tell you something. I had something once that looked like a, let me see, a boulder? And I thought would last me WEEKS. it didn't though, a couple hours, that was it.

I'm keeping it real, this is the real deal, right?

GTA V is definitely going to reinvent open world gaming, even over itself - I am fully convinced and aware of that fact, it is going to be an excellent game and an amazing, and utterly "am·bi·tious" with a R* logo next to in the dictionary, but please, for the Love of God, let's all hope this isn't the trend.

Let's hope this indeed is "the big one".

Let us all hope together that this is the ultimate pass, the one they "really" want to iterate quickly on, like the old days, every couple or few years, all the while releasing other games and new content for this one, improving it, an upgradable game - I'll give their call the benefit of every aspect of awesome that could arise from a "bold new direction in open-world freedom".

Let's hope these six years have not complicated their process more, and instead been used to clean up their pipeline. I think their pipeline is almost perfect. It has a few real world kinks. They are addressable. Now this, I have no idea - let us hope that they have also spent this time making it easier for themselves to be more iterative, more quickly as well.

Because I am with you all on "GTA does not need to come out every year" - it truly, truly doesn't. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't, especially in the interest of the most passionate players. I'm not saying it should be yearly either - 2 or 3 years though, is fine. CoD and my liking one of its releases very much shouldn't likely be in the discussion, but fair enough, I think CoD is exploitative and people in general do not really have time to spend on those games every year, now every few months with the dlc packs - it's too much, it's exploitative.

From a business perspective, goon on ATVI, but from a personal or life perspective, good on Rockstar for not being exploitative and being more about quality. I get it, I am with it, I suppose none of this would be so shocking to me if I didn't skip the console-only releases, some of these things are things some of you perhaps were hoping would be added to the game from their other games - like Manhunt stuff in SA or GTA stuff in Bully, then Bully stuff in GTA V. I get it, I truly do, I love it, I just worry about this:

They talk about mass audience appeal, that they are for the mass audience, they are on about it recently in the press - I fully respect it and support it, and that's the issue, because if that is the case, this game needs to be showing iteration far more often.

Look, you got cod, you gots sports games around the world, you got crysis (more popular franchise than you'd think), and others (naughty dog, bunjie and offspring, lots of things), which released yearly or multiple times throughout this cycle. those are the mass audience games, always on people's tongues, in the development spotlight, you need to be out there a few times. GTA is not expected yearly. It isn't a linear thing with reused models to make 15 or 16 MP maps and get churning out the next one, I know, it's GTA, it's mesh based, everything is real, everything is art. streaming in and out on the fly and simulating a living breathing city and all that - but look back to GTA III, VC, SA, and IV.

GTA - 1997
GTA2 - 1999
GTA III - 2001
GTA VC - 2002
GTA SA - 2004
GTA IV - 2008
GTA V - 2013

It's like saying you'd be okay with it if it was more like:

GTA - 1997
GTA2 - 1999
GTA III - 2001
GTA VC - 2005
GTA SA - 2010
GTA IV - 2018
GTA V - 2026


Do you see? Do you see how effed up that can be?

If not like that, then like this:

GTA - 1997
GTA2 - 1999
GTA SA - 2004
GTA IV - 2008
GTA V - 2013

Say goodbye to GTA III and VC, and this is totally okay by you?

You guys would rather:

Play IV in 2008, then V in 2013

You'd rather that over:

Play IV in 2008. VC in Maybe 2010 or 2011 with some of the stuff from V, then V in 2013 with everything it will have?

It would be preference to play GTA III in 2001, wait til 2005 for san andreas, never see IV until 2009 and wait for V until 2014?

Man, cause I know I'm getting reallllly technical here, but I just hope this doesn't continue this way. They need to move quicker and iterate over time, because just like yearly games can get boring, long release gaps can stagnate a franchise. Fan shock from "reboot-like" changes abruptly and suddenly can complicate things a lot too, as you see.

I'm just not okay with the idea of GTA being like one of those celebrities who gets super famous and keeps the minds of their fans active and then drifts off to vegas throwing botttles at walls and selling new remastered classics and remixes from a top floor penthouse opposite the one his wife is banished to.

IV was capable of supporting so much, so fast, look at TLaD, TBoGT - how many other episodes could there have been? Could have there been Vice City about IV's size + the "unused area" south of the map? What would life had been like, if III and VC, or VC and SA, never came out?

EDDDIT:
QUOTE
Games back in those days didn't take as much time and resources as games do now. The textures were extremely low quality, the sound effects sucked, the graphics sucked... games aren't like that anymore, of course it's going to take longer to develop.


GTA has never prided itself on that and even IV was really lo fi in a lot of senses compared to other games - CoD manages to do most all the same stuff, yearly, when it comes to sounds and noises and stuff, some they reuse - nothing wrong with that, but they do it yearly. But you're telling me that all these changes and new features and stuff couldn't have been met half way with another location, story, and set of peds? Not everything needs to be brand new - I'm sure we will see plenty of reuse in V from IV, and from other games they made, why junk good stuff? Still - I'm not okay with this, because it's the equivalent to VC and SA never existing :x

Monty Mantis
  • Monty Mantis

    Resident F*ckin' Professional

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 May 2013

#76

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:32 AM

QUOTE (gtafreak10 @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 16:54)
QUOTE (brian. @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 23:43)
QUOTE (gtafreak10 @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 19:36)
QUOTE (brian. @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 23:34)
Yea, I will undoubtedly add this game to my steam collection, spend anywhere from 80 to 150 hours in it, enjoy, find it to be totally awesome and grow accustomed to the vast amount of changes made between a single release, but I will always feel like it changes far too much too quickly yet too far too long in terms of time between releases to do so.

Let me explain this:

GTA would be like this in 2013 no matter what. Right? It would be like this, because it is like this, it is what it is.

Are you guys trying to say that it was WORTH waiting 6 years to play this game when you could have played 2 other GTAs in the meantime, and still ended up here, got all this change over time, instead of out of nowhere and after 6 long years? Think about it - the end result for GTA 2013 could have been the same, but there also could have been some more between this and IV to make it feel right.

You guys see where I am coming from?

Not really... I think the 6 years was WELL worth it.

So you are going to tell me, with a straight face:

"I am fine with 6 years wait. I would not have preferred, say, Vice City with half of these changes by 2010 or 2011, and then GTA V now with the rest of the changes we are now instead seeing for the first time"


Games back in those days didn't take as much time and resources as games do now. The textures were extremely low quality, the sound effects sucked, the graphics sucked... games aren't like that anymore, of course it's going to take longer to develop.

This is something that many people don't understand about GTA, especially V and the whole 'other cities' debacle. As much as I love Vice City, I've no doubts that it was an easy and cheap game to make.

But as technology evolves, we can't have the same development cycles of 1-2 years. Games are becoming massive fair with huge and highly detailed, highly interactive game worlds. Things like intelligent AI and weather effects, wave simulation, location-specific character models all require massive amount of work.

To get quality products like GTA V, you'll have to wait a long time and development times are likely to get longer.

TheJasonGallant
  • TheJasonGallant

    Random Player

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2010

#77

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:33 AM

It was in MP3 as well... I'm happy they kept it in.

ugotsmoked
  • ugotsmoked

    I DON'T GIVE A F*CK WHAT YOU THINK.

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2010
  • None

#78

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:34 AM

QUOTE (gtafreak10 @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 23:18)
QUOTE (ugotsmoked @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 23:15)
That's why I double tap to the head with the Striker shotgun...no questions asked.

lol speaking of shotguns, I hope that the AA-12 back, but without explosive bullets. I used one on TBoGT multiplayer that didn't have explosive bullets and it kicked ass. I never could find one in singleplayer though sad.gif Let's hope that changes. Maybe instead of certain guns having explosive bullets, we can make any gun have explosive bullets, do to customization (changing what type of bullets we want)

I like the AA-12 but the striker is my fav of all time, I am hoping it comes back.

EvilFuture
  • EvilFuture

    To Harm and Withhold™

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012
  • None

#79

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:36 AM

QUOTE (ugotsmoked @ Wednesday, Jul 10 2013, 00:34)
QUOTE (gtafreak10 @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 23:18)
QUOTE (ugotsmoked @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 23:15)
That's why I double tap to the head with the Striker shotgun...no questions asked.

lol speaking of shotguns, I hope that the AA-12 back, but without explosive bullets. I used one on TBoGT multiplayer that didn't have explosive bullets and it kicked ass. I never could find one in singleplayer though sad.gif Let's hope that changes. Maybe instead of certain guns having explosive bullets, we can make any gun have explosive bullets, do to customization (changing what type of bullets we want)

I like the AA-12 but the striker is my fav of all time, I am hoping it comes back.

I also really liked the sawed off shotgun from TLaD. Hope it returns too. I'm sure all of our favorite weapons will return, as GTA V has the most weapons of a GTA game yet. icon14.gif

GTAVwillbeEPIC
  • GTAVwillbeEPIC

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2013

#80

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:36 AM

QUOTE (brian. @ Wednesday, Jul 10 2013, 00:28)
So... you would be okay if VC and SA never existed? Because that's basically what you're saying.

Food? Okay, you'd rather eat only once every 6 days, but it's a new taste you may or may not like every time, you'd rather that, over eating 3 or 4 times a week the sustenance you need just to make it to the point your people can eat 5 or 6 days a week next?

Think it over - I know it's worded strangely lol tounge.gif

You'd rather have sex with a new girl once every six years than bang the same fun and awesome chick and do more and have fun and stuff?

You'd really rather GTA VI come out in 6 years from now? Is it because that implies, for our hopes, that it will be so good, we will play it for 6 years and not want more until they are ready to delay another one?

I'm keeping it real, this is the real deal, right?

GTA V is definitely going to reinvent open world gaming, even over itself - I am fully convinced and aware of that fact, it is going to be an excellent game and an amazing, and utterly "am·bi·tious" with a R* logo next to in the dictionary, but please, for the Love of God, let's all hope this isn't the trend.

Let's hope this indeed is "the big one".

Let us all hope together that this is the ultimate pass, the one they "really" want to iterate quickly on, like the old days, every couple or few years, all the while releasing other games and new content for this one, improving it, an upgradable game - I'll give their call the benefit of every aspect of awesome that could arise from a "bold new direction in open-world freedom".

Let's hope these six years have not complicated their process more, and instead been used to clean up their pipeline. I think their pipeline is almost perfect. It has a few real world kinks. They are addressable. Now this, I have no idea - let us hope that they have also spent this time making it easier for themselves to be more iterative, more quickly as well.

Because I am with you all on "GTA does not need to come out every year" - it truly, truly doesn't. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't, especially in the interest of the most passionate players. I'm not saying it should be yearly either - 2 or 3 years though, is fine. CoD and my liking one of its releases very much shouldn't likely be in the discussion, but fair enough, I think CoD is exploitative and people in general do not really have time to spend on those games every year, now every few months with the dlc packs - it's too much, it's exploitative.

From a business perspective, goon on ATVI, but from a personal or life perspective, good on Rockstar for not being exploitative and being more about quality. I get it, I am with it, I suppose none of this would be so shocking to me if I didn't skip the console-only releases, some of these things are things some of you perhaps were hoping would be added to the game from their other games - like Manhunt stuff in SA or GTA stuff in Bully, then Bully stuff in GTA V. I get it, I truly do, I love it, I just worry about this:

They talk about mass audience appeal, that they are for the mass audience, they are on about it recently in the press - I fully respect it and support it, and that's the issue, because if that is the case, this game needs to be showing iteration far more often.

Look, you got cod, you gots sports games around the world, you got crysis (more popular franchise than you'd think), and others (naughty dog, bunjie and offspring, lots of things), which released yearly or multiple times throughout this cycle. those are the mass audience games, always on people's tongues, in the development spotlight, you need to be out there a few times. GTA is not expected yearly. It isn't a linear thing with reused models to make 15 or 16 MP maps and get churning out the next one, I know, it's GTA, it's mesh based, everything is real, everything is art. streaming in and out on the fly and simulating a living breathing city and all that - but look back to GTA III, VC, SA, and IV.

GTA - 1997
GTA2 - 1999
GTA III - 2001
GTA VC - 2002
GTA SA - 2004
GTA IV - 2008
GTA V - 2013

It's like saying you'd be okay with it if it was more like:

GTA - 1997
GTA2 - 1999
GTA III - 2001
GTA VC - 2005
GTA SA - 2010
GTA IV - 2018
GTA V - 2026


Do you see? Do you see how effed up that can be?

If not like that, then like this:

GTA - 1997
GTA2 - 1999
GTA SA - 2004
GTA IV - 2008
GTA V - 2013

Say goodbye to GTA III and VC, and this is totally okay by you?

You guys would rather:

Play IV in 2008, then V in 2013

You'd rather that over:

Play IV in 2008. VC in Maybe 2010 or 2011 with some of the stuff from V, then V in 2013 with everything it will have?

It would be preference to play GTA III in 2001, wait til 2005 for san andreas, never see IV until 2009 and wait for V until 2014?

Man, cause I know I'm getting reallllly technical here, but I just hope this doesn't continue this way. They need to move quicker and iterate over time, because just like yearly games can get boring, long release gaps can stagnate a franchise. Fan shock from "reboot-like" changes abruptly and suddenly can complicate things a lot too, as you see.

I'm just not okay with the idea of GTA being like one of those celebrities who gets super famous and keeps the minds of their fans active and then drifts off to vegas throwing botttles at walls and selling new remastered classics and remixes from a top floor penthouse opposite the one his wife is banished to.

IV was capable of supporting so much, so fast, look at TLaD, TBoGT - how many other episodes could there have been? Could have there been Vice City about IV's size + the "unused area" south of the map? What would life had been like, if III and VC, or VC and SA, never came out?

EDDDIT:
QUOTE
Games back in those days didn't take as much time and resources as games do now. The textures were extremely low quality, the sound effects sucked, the graphics sucked... games aren't like that anymore, of course it's going to take longer to develop.


GTA has never prided itself on that and even IV was really lo fi in a lot of senses compared to other games - CoD manages to do most all the same stuff, yearly, when it comes to sounds and noises and stuff, some they reuse - nothing wrong with that, but they do it yearly. But you're telling me that all these changes and new features and stuff couldn't have been met half way with another location, story, and set of peds? Not everything needs to be brand new - I'm sure we will see plenty of reuse in V from IV, and from other games they made, why junk good stuff? Still - I'm not okay with this, because it's the equivalent to VC and SA never existing :x

That isn't the same thing as saying VC or SA would have never existed because that was in a different era. Do you not understand? PS3 has a VERY complicated architecture, it takes them years of practice to get something right.

ugotsmoked
  • ugotsmoked

    I DON'T GIVE A F*CK WHAT YOU THINK.

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2010
  • None

#81

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:39 AM

QUOTE (gtafreak10 @ Wednesday, Jul 10 2013, 00:36)
QUOTE (ugotsmoked @ Wednesday, Jul 10 2013, 00:34)
QUOTE (gtafreak10 @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 23:18)
QUOTE (ugotsmoked @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 23:15)
That's why I double tap to the head with the Striker shotgun...no questions asked.

lol speaking of shotguns, I hope that the AA-12 back, but without explosive bullets. I used one on TBoGT multiplayer that didn't have explosive bullets and it kicked ass. I never could find one in singleplayer though sad.gif Let's hope that changes. Maybe instead of certain guns having explosive bullets, we can make any gun have explosive bullets, do to customization (changing what type of bullets we want)

I like the AA-12 but the striker is my fav of all time, I am hoping it comes back.

I also really liked the sawed off shotgun from TLaD. Hope it returns too. I'm sure all of our favorite weapons will return, as GTA V has the most weapons of a GTA game yet. icon14.gif

I agree, I want to be able to use the striker shotgun one handed from motorcycles.

EvilFuture
  • EvilFuture

    To Harm and Withhold™

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012
  • None

#82

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:40 AM

QUOTE (ugotsmoked @ Wednesday, Jul 10 2013, 00:39)
QUOTE (gtafreak10 @ Wednesday, Jul 10 2013, 00:36)
QUOTE (ugotsmoked @ Wednesday, Jul 10 2013, 00:34)
QUOTE (gtafreak10 @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 23:18)
QUOTE (ugotsmoked @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 23:15)
That's why I double tap to the head with the Striker shotgun...no questions asked.

lol speaking of shotguns, I hope that the AA-12 back, but without explosive bullets. I used one on TBoGT multiplayer that didn't have explosive bullets and it kicked ass. I never could find one in singleplayer though sad.gif Let's hope that changes. Maybe instead of certain guns having explosive bullets, we can make any gun have explosive bullets, do to customization (changing what type of bullets we want)

I like the AA-12 but the striker is my fav of all time, I am hoping it comes back.

I also really liked the sawed off shotgun from TLaD. Hope it returns too. I'm sure all of our favorite weapons will return, as GTA V has the most weapons of a GTA game yet. icon14.gif

I agree, I want to be able to use the striker shotgun one handed from motorcycles.

This topic is basically one big clusterf*ck or RDR kill effect, shotguns, and brian.'s big discussion. lol

TyphoonJames
  • TyphoonJames

    King Cobra

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2008

#83

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:42 AM

I noticed it too. A good, subtle way to let the player know they got a kill. As for the hit markers, I'm not really fussed as long as they are optional.

ugotsmoked
  • ugotsmoked

    I DON'T GIVE A F*CK WHAT YOU THINK.

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2010
  • None

#84

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:43 AM

QUOTE (gtafreak10 @ Wednesday, Jul 10 2013, 00:40)
QUOTE (ugotsmoked @ Wednesday, Jul 10 2013, 00:39)
QUOTE (gtafreak10 @ Wednesday, Jul 10 2013, 00:36)
QUOTE (ugotsmoked @ Wednesday, Jul 10 2013, 00:34)
QUOTE (gtafreak10 @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 23:18)
QUOTE (ugotsmoked @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 23:15)
That's why I double tap to the head with the Striker shotgun...no questions asked.

lol speaking of shotguns, I hope that the AA-12 back, but without explosive bullets. I used one on TBoGT multiplayer that didn't have explosive bullets and it kicked ass. I never could find one in singleplayer though sad.gif Let's hope that changes. Maybe instead of certain guns having explosive bullets, we can make any gun have explosive bullets, do to customization (changing what type of bullets we want)

I like the AA-12 but the striker is my fav of all time, I am hoping it comes back.

I also really liked the sawed off shotgun from TLaD. Hope it returns too. I'm sure all of our favorite weapons will return, as GTA V has the most weapons of a GTA game yet. icon14.gif

I agree, I want to be able to use the striker shotgun one handed from motorcycles.

This topic is basically one big clusterf*ck or RDR kill effect, shotguns, and brian.'s big discussion. lol

Almost every topic turns into a clusterf*ck... suicidal.gif

Honest Bill
  • Honest Bill

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Sep 2010

#85

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:52 AM

QUOTE (DeadZombie @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 22:10)
QUOTE (Honest Bill @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 21:44)
QUOTE (brian. @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 21:42)
He's talking about that stupid ass hitmarker.

It is unintuitive and stupid.

It looks like a half-assed blood splatter half of the times it is seen in the gameplay video, and other times, it doesn't even work.

Michael shoots two guys and they show either red or gray ex. He headshots the next guy and gets nothing.

Is it in fact a kill indicator? That detail above would express that is not the case.

It is unneeded and confusing, not easily readable. You should recognize this stuff and get what it is right away, whatever that is, it is unneeded screen clutter that is getting in the way of the action in my opinion.

This is a very strange, very weird iteration of GTA so far.

5 YEARS IS TOO LONG AND TOO MUCH CHANGES IN 5 YEARS ALL AT ONCE. GAME AIN'T THE SAME ANYMORE.

He's not talking about that. He means the warping effect that happens for a split second when you kill someone.

I agree that the hit-markers are annoying. They aren't necessary for single player, although i'd say they are needed in multiplayer.

Thier kill markers you idiot.

Yeah you're right... I mean i thought i knew exactly what i was talking about, but thanks to your compelling argument, i have now realised what an idiot i am... What a complete and utter, simple-minded, half-witted, moronic c*nt i must have been. You've taught me a valuable lesson here today... Humility.

ninja1232
  • ninja1232

    Its the Final Countdown.....

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011

#86

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:01 AM

QUOTE (Monty Mantis @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 17:28)
@brian.

It's not a reboot, your massively overreacting. The biggest changes we've gotten are the three protagonists and the fact that the countryside is likely 60%-ish of the map. The rest of those things your wheezing over are simply artistic choices or gameplay refinements by R*, and they can all be explained. The HUD was redesigned to fit the sleek and modern theme of the game, and because it blends well with the scenery and gameplay. The minimap is now a "GPS" because it's incredibly dynamic and changes depending if you’re walking, driving, flying or diving. The kill markers were added because many gamers complained that they would move on from a shot enemy only to be killed by him later.

Your second point is probably the most moronic thing I have read on these threads. Yes, five years is a long time to wait but it's just a video game. It's not like their needs to be an annual release, which reminds me, GTA is refreshing because unlike 90% of the games released these days, its different from the previous installment. That's the magic of GTA. Every single one is so different and unique you can play them all like separate games, since they all feel so different.

Lastly, stop saying V is a reboot, that's f*cking stupid. You see, GTA is an interesting series because they aren't really linked by anything besides a very fickle satire universe. The only thing that a GTA game needs is gameplay based around crime, and the rest is up to the theme of the game. That's why GTA is a hard series to reboot, because there was almost nothing linking all the games together in the first place. I suppose the closest GTA gets to a reboot is each era (2D, 3D, HD, V?).

So you need to sit down and take quite a few deep breaths because you are throwing a pretty directionless fit. Next thing I know, you going to be screaming about the fact that V changed its font.

EXACTLY. Your on my respect list now biggrin.gif

Monty Mantis
  • Monty Mantis

    Resident F*ckin' Professional

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 May 2013

#87

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:03 AM

QUOTE (ninja1232 @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 20:01)
QUOTE (Monty Mantis @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 17:28)
@brian.

It's not a reboot, your massively overreacting. The biggest changes we've gotten are the three protagonists and the fact that the countryside is likely 60%-ish of the map. The rest of those things your wheezing over are simply artistic choices or gameplay refinements by R*, and they can all be explained. The HUD was redesigned to fit the sleek and modern theme of the game, and because it blends well with the scenery and gameplay. The minimap is now a "GPS" because it's incredibly dynamic and changes depending if you’re walking, driving, flying or diving. The kill markers were added because many gamers complained that they would move on from a shot enemy only to be killed by him later.

Your second point is probably the most moronic thing I have read on these threads. Yes, five years is a long time to wait but it's just a video game. It's not like their needs to be an annual release, which reminds me, GTA is refreshing because unlike 90% of the games released these days, its different from the previous installment. That's the magic of GTA. Every single one is so different and unique you can play them all like separate games, since they all feel so different.

Lastly, stop saying V is a reboot, that's f*cking stupid. You see, GTA is an interesting series because they aren't really linked by anything besides a very fickle satire universe. The only thing that a GTA game needs is gameplay based around crime, and the rest is up to the theme of the game. That's why GTA is a hard series to reboot, because there was almost nothing linking all the games together in the first place. I suppose the closest GTA gets to a reboot is each era (2D, 3D, HD, V?).

So you need to sit down and take quite a few deep breaths because you are throwing a pretty directionless fit. Next thing I know, you going to be screaming about the fact that V changed its font.

EXACTLY. Your on my respect list now biggrin.gif

Oh hey, thanks.

ekhunter
  • ekhunter

    Love Fist

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2012

#88

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:11 AM

QUOTE (brian. @ Wednesday, Jul 10 2013, 00:28)
So... you would be okay if VC and SA never existed? Because that's basically what you're saying.

Food? Okay, you'd rather eat only once every 6 days, but it's a new taste you may or may not like every time, you'd rather that, over eating 3 or 4 times a week the sustenance you need just to make it to the point your people can eat 5 or 6 days a week next?

Think it over - I know it's worded strangely lol tounge.gif

You'd rather have sex with a new girl once every six years than bang the same fun and awesome chick and do more and have fun and stuff?

You'd really rather GTA VI come out in 6 years from now? Is it because that implies, for our hopes, that GTA V will be so good, we will play it for 6 years and not want more until they are ready to delay another one? We won't need a new one until 2020?

Let me tell you something. I had something once that looked like a, let me see, a boulder? And I thought would last me WEEKS. it didn't though, a couple hours, that was it.

I'm keeping it real, this is the real deal, right?

GTA V is definitely going to reinvent open world gaming, even over itself - I am fully convinced and aware of that fact, it is going to be an excellent game and an amazing, and utterly "am·bi·tious" with a R* logo next to in the dictionary, but please, for the Love of God, let's all hope this isn't the trend.

Let's hope this indeed is "the big one".

Let us all hope together that this is the ultimate pass, the one they "really" want to iterate quickly on, like the old days, every couple or few years, all the while releasing other games and new content for this one, improving it, an upgradable game - I'll give their call the benefit of every aspect of awesome that could arise from a "bold new direction in open-world freedom".

Let's hope these six years have not complicated their process more, and instead been used to clean up their pipeline. I think their pipeline is almost perfect. It has a few real world kinks. They are addressable. Now this, I have no idea - let us hope that they have also spent this time making it easier for themselves to be more iterative, more quickly as well.

Because I am with you all on "GTA does not need to come out every year" - it truly, truly doesn't. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't, especially in the interest of the most passionate players. I'm not saying it should be yearly either - 2 or 3 years though, is fine. CoD and my liking one of its releases very much shouldn't likely be in the discussion, but fair enough, I think CoD is exploitative and people in general do not really have time to spend on those games every year, now every few months with the dlc packs - it's too much, it's exploitative.

From a business perspective, goon on ATVI, but from a personal or life perspective, good on Rockstar for not being exploitative and being more about quality. I get it, I am with it, I suppose none of this would be so shocking to me if I didn't skip the console-only releases, some of these things are things some of you perhaps were hoping would be added to the game from their other games - like Manhunt stuff in SA or GTA stuff in Bully, then Bully stuff in GTA V. I get it, I truly do, I love it, I just worry about this:

They talk about mass audience appeal, that they are for the mass audience, they are on about it recently in the press - I fully respect it and support it, and that's the issue, because if that is the case, this game needs to be showing iteration far more often.

Look, you got cod, you gots sports games around the world, you got crysis (more popular franchise than you'd think), and others (naughty dog, bunjie and offspring, lots of things), which released yearly or multiple times throughout this cycle. those are the mass audience games, always on people's tongues, in the development spotlight, you need to be out there a few times. GTA is not expected yearly. It isn't a linear thing with reused models to make 15 or 16 MP maps and get churning out the next one, I know, it's GTA, it's mesh based, everything is real, everything is art. streaming in and out on the fly and simulating a living breathing city and all that - but look back to GTA III, VC, SA, and IV.

GTA - 1997
GTA2 - 1999
GTA III - 2001
GTA VC - 2002
GTA SA - 2004
GTA IV - 2008
GTA V - 2013

It's like saying you'd be okay with it if it was more like:

GTA - 1997
GTA2 - 1999
GTA III - 2001
GTA VC - 2005
GTA SA - 2010
GTA IV - 2018
GTA V - 2026


Do you see? Do you see how effed up that can be?

If not like that, then like this:

GTA - 1997
GTA2 - 1999
GTA SA - 2004
GTA IV - 2008
GTA V - 2013

Say goodbye to GTA III and VC, and this is totally okay by you?

You guys would rather:

Play IV in 2008, then V in 2013

You'd rather that over:

Play IV in 2008. VC in Maybe 2010 or 2011 with some of the stuff from V, then V in 2013 with everything it will have?

It would be preference to play GTA III in 2001, wait til 2005 for san andreas, never see IV until 2009 and wait for V until 2014?

Man, cause I know I'm getting reallllly technical here, but I just hope this doesn't continue this way. They need to move quicker and iterate over time, because just like yearly games can get boring, long release gaps can stagnate a franchise. Fan shock from "reboot-like" changes abruptly and suddenly can complicate things a lot too, as you see.

I'm just not okay with the idea of GTA being like one of those celebrities who gets super famous and keeps the minds of their fans active and then drifts off to vegas throwing botttles at walls and selling new remastered classics and remixes from a top floor penthouse opposite the one his wife is banished to.

IV was capable of supporting so much, so fast, look at TLaD, TBoGT - how many other episodes could there have been? Could have there been Vice City about IV's size + the "unused area" south of the map? What would life had been like, if III and VC, or VC and SA, never came out?

EDDDIT:
QUOTE
Games back in those days didn't take as much time and resources as games do now. The textures were extremely low quality, the sound effects sucked, the graphics sucked... games aren't like that anymore, of course it's going to take longer to develop.


GTA has never prided itself on that and even IV was really lo fi in a lot of senses compared to other games - CoD manages to do most all the same stuff, yearly, when it comes to sounds and noises and stuff, some they reuse - nothing wrong with that, but they do it yearly. But you're telling me that all these changes and new features and stuff couldn't have been met half way with another location, story, and set of peds? Not everything needs to be brand new - I'm sure we will see plenty of reuse in V from IV, and from other games they made, why junk good stuff? Still - I'm not okay with this, because it's the equivalent to VC and SA never existing :x





why dnt you just STFU you nOOb?? noone care's what you opinion is! you're probably like 17. angry.gif yawn.gif

shattered-minds
  • shattered-minds

    Lovely chap

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2007
  • United-Kingdom

#89

Posted 10 July 2013 - 08:00 AM

I think where Brian is maybe getting a bit confused Brian, or even just short sighted is he thinks building a GTA 4.5 would somehow have taken only a year or two and the only reason 5 has taken so long is because of these small, mostly cosmetic changes, where it just doesn't work like that. For one, we don't know R*s work flow we also don't now of any technical problems they've come across.. The game must have been delayed for a reason.

It was 4 years between SA and IV it's only taken them two years longer to make V. Also most of the stuff you have mentioned is not a GTA defining feature that has changed. for example, the "realistic" driving was only introduced in IV before that is was arcadey driving so how is changing it now somehow making the game too different? The only real bug changes are the 3 protagonists and the special abilities, of which im not find of personally, but its hardly a deal breaker. Anyway, I need to leave for work.

ReconzVenture
  • ReconzVenture

    Eccentric Raver

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#90

Posted 10 July 2013 - 08:28 AM

QUOTE (brian. @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 22:12)
Read my latest post before this one, it explains. It's not necessarily any given single feature, but instead, it's that they took 6 years gutting and replacing GTA with something else, when it could have been 2 or 3 years for a game "on its way" to here. It's too much change, too quickly for the series, and took way, way too long to get released.

We could have 2 or 3 GTA games by now if they would have not "fixed what wasn't broken in the first place".

All this time spent on sh*t that, very obviously judging by the reactions on these forums, half of the fans don't even like. You mean to tell me, we waited 6 years for more GTA, and we're getting something different? You mean to tell me you changed ALL of this, and that's the excuse for why LV and SF are deleted from the state of san andreas?

No man, they f*cked up big time on GTA V. Even if it's a hit, even if it does well and we all enjoy it, we will miss GTA, because this ain't GTA anymore. It's a GTA reboot if it is GTA anything at all. So it shouldn't even be called "V" because as far as the experience goes: Everything is completely different, it's not a sequel, it's a reboot. It's not GTA V, it's "Grand Theft Auto 2013" in my book.

And some people like reboots, and some don't. Some like one reboot, but not the other. This will be the case with GTA V. Some will like it, but most true GTA fans will probably enjoy it, but dislike how long it took just to give us something completely different.

IF they spent less time gutting everything, imagine how much sooner and better and bigger GTA V could have been. I'm pissed, but I will give the benefit of the doubt.

QUOTE
Thier kill markers you idiot.


No, they aren't. Because the first two guys michael shoots put up a gray then a red x, why would a kill marker have 2 states? And the guy he HEADSHOTS after those two dies, the screen blurs, and it's a HEADSHOT, yet there is NO marker for him! So it's not a kill marker, and that was all explained in your own quoting post, so I am wondering who is the idiot here. Because I think only an idiot would call someone an idiot while they spout of incorrect information themselves.

f*cking hell! Go shove a dildo up your ass you need to relax. Go re-evaluate your f*cking life too, getting that wound up over 4 minutes of gameplay. It's extremely evident that you don't like the new features in the game (most of which you could probably turn on/off) so why are you wasting your life on that very games forums site to complain about it? Just erase it from your head, don't buy the game, and give everyone on this website a sigh of relief.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users