Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

How can anyone defend Rockstar?

201 replies to this topic
THemac
  • THemac

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2013

#121

Posted 02 October 2013 - 06:38 PM

 

 

 

Holy sh*t people like you are SO ungrateful. This game has SO MUCH to do. On both single player and multiplayer, ever think that maybe

you're just not into gaming as much as you used to be? That's how I feel and I'm pretty sure a lot of other people are mistaking their

mis-interest in games and thinking that the game just sucks.

 

I can't find myself enjoying it much either, but I know that that's just because I don't have as much interest in gaming as I used to because 

I've grown up.

 

There are some things that could've been done better, yes. Such as cops, npc aggression, the story could've been a bit longer also. But I

understand why it wasn't. They made every story mission different and unique, unlike other gta's. But in the end there is so much more 

content in this game to make up for it. It'd be cool if they eventually patch the cops and npc aggression which I doubt will happen but w/e.

Ungrateful? Wtf should he be grateful for! f*ck sake its comments like that, that piss me off. He f*ckING PAID FOR THIS WHY SHOULD HE GIVE ROCKSTAR GRATITUDE IF ANYTHING THEY SHOULD BE GRATEFUL. f*ck

 

Did I say he should give them gratitude? No. But comments like his is unnecessary. Rockstar worked long and hard on this game and

they did deliver. They gave everything they said they would. If you could show me something that they confirmed to be in the game but

isn't then there's no reason to give hate on this game.

 

 

1. You called him ungrateful. That means you said he should give rockstar some gratitude (the opposite of ungrateful FYI heres a definition "

Adjective
  1. Not feeling or showing gratitude: "she's so ungrateful for everything we do"."

.....)

 

2. They are necessary as they are legitimate problems (for the most part). How the f*ck can Rockstar better the next GTA if all the comments are 

"GAME OF THE GENERATION"

"FLAWLESS"

"BETTER GRAPHIX THAN CRYSIS 3"

"GTA IS L33333T"

3. They did not deliver. They delivered on a for the most part fun single player that was depressingly shorter than previous GTA games, an open world with nothing but repetitive activities and a broken online part. How the f*ck do you class that as 'delivering'? Delivering disappointment? If so I agree.

 

 

Here is what they did not have in the game that they promised they would have

 

  • GTA online. Before people say "Rockstar said there would be problems" Bullsh*t wtf was the point in delaying the online 2 weeks if it wasnt going to work anyway? It was a cop out that fanboys believe sadly.
  • Buying Safe houses
  • In depth customization (lol like 3 haircuts, 5 more guns than GTA IV, and dont get me started on GTAO customization)
  • In Depth heists organization. Brb lemme go plant a car here and pick from 2 different ways to tackle a heist.
  • Stealth (lol its f*cking broken as hell outside missions)

 

Im sure theres alot more but thats the sh*t that bugged me. 

 

 

 

 

 

Holy sh*t people like you are SO ungrateful. This game has SO MUCH to do. On both single player and multiplayer, ever think that maybe

you're just not into gaming as much as you used to be? That's how I feel and I'm pretty sure a lot of other people are mistaking their

mis-interest in games and thinking that the game just sucks.

 

I can't find myself enjoying it much either, but I know that that's just because I don't have as much interest in gaming as I used to because 

I've grown up.

 

There are some things that could've been done better, yes. Such as cops, npc aggression, the story could've been a bit longer also. But I

understand why it wasn't. They made every story mission different and unique, unlike other gta's. But in the end there is so much more 

content in this game to make up for it. It'd be cool if they eventually patch the cops and npc aggression which I doubt will happen but w/e.

Ungrateful? Wtf should he be grateful for! f*ck sake its comments like that, that piss me off. He f*ckING PAID FOR THIS WHY SHOULD HE GIVE ROCKSTAR GRATITUDE IF ANYTHING THEY SHOULD BE GRATEFUL. f*ck

 

Yeah he paid $60 for a complete game and single player by itself is a complete game. Online is just an extra bonus

 

Any game is a 'complete' game. Does he feel the game is satisfactory? Perhaps not. Has he got the right as a consumer to share his problems with it? Certainly. 

 

How the f*ck can we move forward past this plateau of Multiplayer and DLC focused gaming if nobody can share LEGITIMATE concerns with the game they waited years for and paid $60 for without getting his arsehole destroyed from fanboys who get a round house kick from Rockstar whenever somebody shares a negative opinion?

 

It's one thing to stress concern, its another thing for people to act like little bitches and do nothing but whine about things they don't like

 

 

What do you mean whine about thins they dont like? How the f*ck would Rockstar know what to patch and fix if nobody can express there problems with the game? Sure it would make sense if he was the ONLY one complaining about a certain problem but he isnt. Alot of people with half a brain acknowledge the problems with this game (BROKEN online, Broken cop AI etc etc)

 

If you can’t tell the difference between someone whining and bad mouthing compared to someone expressing their concerns in a legitimate mature manner then I don’t know what to tell you


AlmightyHabbib
  • AlmightyHabbib

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2013

#122

Posted 02 October 2013 - 06:41 PM

                                    This is the big one, but read on, and use the                             head to understand what I'm trying to say.




Rockstar is seemingly getting a lot of hate, either that or the hateful handfuls are really itching to express their dissatisfaction with the game.

    When you look from the side of things, that hate is completely misguided :D I saw people call this game sh*t, because it had fewer interiors, and tougher car damage, those tiny details, that barely matter, and would surely not be noticed in any other open sandbox game, it's just weird. Or how the GTA Online, is biggest crap etc. etc. well sure the launch of it is a little of a let down, but people getting this upset about it, suggests that they are really itching to play it, so this hate might just be paranoic annoyance, and I would stop myself from calling GTA online total crap just yet, if the major issues were not fixed a month from now, then yes, but it's on it's second day, and people are freaking out, which is also funny as hell.

 

   Rockstar poured 5 years of hard work in this game and all it's aspects, they could do a yearly release, like Call of Duty, and earn double more than they do with their current model of business, but they don't, because they care about people, they care about their game's quality, and that is important.

  Now in my opinion, I think GTAV is a complete package, which offers high quality, and big variety, and in my eyes, is a direct sequel for San Andreas. Now people raise issue over features supposedly cut from the singleplayer, but they way I see it, the SP was about these 3 characters, and their journey, they had their houses, so buying real estate is pointless, creators of these characters, decided how they look, so customization involving characters is more limited, certain interiors were not needed in SP, so were not included, the story mode was clearly, more structured and tailored for a certain experience, and by far, it is no where near empty, it's teeming with stuff, and content to see/hear/explore/do. The hype got to people, and the funniest of all, it's people who hyped themselves, Rockstar did minimal marketing, maybe that forced the really excited people to over use their imagination, and then the game came out and surely, it is not perfect, no, it has flaws and limitations, like every other game, but that hype, and insanely high expectations caused people feel disappointed, and I think they shouldn't point their disappointment to GTAV, because Rockstar did a great job, the game is of highest quality, they should point their disappointment to their imagination. Now of course, I'm not saying that everyone do or should like this game, like in every other form of art and media, some people love it, some like it, some meh it, some dislike it, other absolutely hate it, cannot please everyone at once. And I'm rather convinced that if you simply take V and IV, to a person who has no knowledge of GTA, but is a gamer(don't know how that's possible, but let's imagine it) he MOST LIKELY will choose V, because it looks better, feels better, sounds better, plays better I mean technically much more advanced. Anyway, for closure on this column, Watch Dogs driving is complete arcade, haven't seen anyone complain, why? Surely because it is not a GTA. The expectations, lower them, no game can be perfect.

  To finish off, what caught my attention is the name of the topic, "Replying to How can anyone defend Rockstar?", I don't think anyone is defending it, it's the people who like the game, simply appreciate the company that put effort to make it as good as they could. And you are seemingly, having a go at them as if calling them idiots, on matters of opinions, and frankly if you look it from the other side of the fence, a question just as legitimate in your terms would be "Replying to How can anyone have a go at Rockstar?" Just as legitimate. Peace out dawg.

    It's a bit annoying, that everyone tries to express their opinions by creating threads, not just by posting in one.

 

  • jonc24 likes this

jonc24
  • jonc24

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Jan 2006

#123

Posted 02 October 2013 - 06:45 PM Edited by jonc24, 02 October 2013 - 06:50 PM.

For f*ck sake the amount of hypocracey is f*cking disturbing. Let me quote someone (roughly) who enlightened me on alot of things.
 
It is hilarious at how on these forums no matter how retarded you act, or HOW stupid your reasoning is if you post positive things about this game NOBODY challenges / flames you. You could say this game has better water effects than Crysis 3 (I have saw it), is more revolutionary than Half life 2 and nobody would call you retarded / a troll. You would get praised. However if your comments even hint at a negative point of view i.e cops being f*cking psychic then you are one of the following (if not all)
 
1. A saints row player (never understood the logic behind this but w/e)
2. COD player
3. Watch Dogs fanboy
4. Handicapped 
5. In the age range of 6 - 14
6. Troll
 
Why? Well it seems people feel like when they make a purchase on a product of Rockstars they feel they take on some sort of obligation to defend the game whenever a nay sayer arises! Why they do this I do not understand, do they have a personal stake in Rockstar? Are they employers? No they are mindless couch potatoes who take days off college / work to play a game because apparently the game will disappear from their library when they get home and come on these forums to vanquish all 'trolls' who feel this game is lacking in certain areas.
 
Seriously Rockstar do not give a sh*t about you guys. Do you really think they read these forums and think
 
"Yea that user defended us, lets make the DLC free!"
 
f*ck no. They focused more on the online so they could DLC the f*ck out of it. Why they even put a SP in online is beyond me why not save the time and effort and increase the length of the REAL Single player and leave Multi player as it is. Multi player.
 
Rockstar are f*cking scum bags. Like all game developers. It just annoys me even more that they produce some of the finest games I have ever played. GTA V not included.
 
f*cking disgraceful wastes of space.

You've some fully valid points there but you're slightly off on the problem. Petty moaning and useless crying, clogging up every second thread is what pisses people off. Literally, what is the point of creating a new thread to moan about the online when there are literally 50 identical ones already.

People are being accused of being blind fanboys but the truth is much simpler. ARE YOU ALL LISTENING? The reality is that positivity is infectious whilst negativity is draining, tiresome, and often irritating. THAT'S why it looks like some people are just blind fanboys. Deep down, most people just like a positive, welcoming environment. I'm not saying that there are no negatives to GTA V but immature idiots and trolls simply can't find a constructive way to voice these negative opinions and it all just comes across as crybabying. Do you like listening to people crying all day in real life? I wouldn't think so.

Also, yes, like EVERY other business R* are after as much of your money as they can get. It's up to you, as a discerning consumer, to decide what goods or services deserve your ( or in a lot of cases here, your parent's) hard earned cash. Don't get offended because you thought R* were your friends and only just found out they want to get paid. Don't like the games? Don't buy em. Simple

Thebull94
  • Thebull94

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2013

#124

Posted 02 October 2013 - 06:49 PM Edited by Thebull94, 02 October 2013 - 06:52 PM.

 

                                    This is the big one, but read on, and use the                             head to understand what I'm trying to say.




Rockstar is seemingly getting a lot of hate, either that or the hateful handfuls are really itching to express their dissatisfaction with the game.

    When you look from the side of things, that hate is completely misguided :D I saw people call this game sh*t, because it had fewer interiors, and tougher car damage, those tiny details, that barely matter, and would surely not be noticed in any other open sandbox game, it's just weird. Or how the GTA Online, is biggest crap etc. etc. well sure the launch of it is a little of a let down, but people getting this upset about it, suggests that they are really itching to play it, so this hate might just be paranoic annoyance, and I would stop myself from calling GTA online total crap just yet, if the major issues were not fixed a month from now, then yes, but it's on it's second day, and people are freaking out, which is also funny as hell.

 

   Rockstar poured 5 years of hard work in this game and all it's aspects, they could do a yearly release, like Call of Duty, and earn double more than they do with their current model of business, but they don't, because they care about people, they care about their game's quality, and that is important.

  Now in my opinion, I think GTAV is a complete package, which offers high quality, and big variety, and in my eyes, is a direct sequel for San Andreas. Now people raise issue over features supposedly cut from the singleplayer, but they way I see it, the SP was about these 3 characters, and their journey, they had their houses, so buying real estate is pointless, creators of these characters, decided how they look, so customization involving characters is more limited, certain interiors were not needed in SP, so were not included, the story mode was clearly, more structured and tailored for a certain experience, and by far, it is no where near empty, it's teeming with stuff, and content to see/hear/explore/do. The hype got to people, and the funniest of all, it's people who hyped themselves, Rockstar did minimal marketing, maybe that forced the really excited people to over use their imagination, and then the game came out and surely, it is not perfect, no, it has flaws and limitations, like every other game, but that hype, and insanely high expectations caused people feel disappointed, and I think they shouldn't point their disappointment to GTAV, because Rockstar did a great job, the game is of highest quality, they should point their disappointment to their imagination. Now of course, I'm not saying that everyone do or should like this game, like in every other form of art and media, some people love it, some like it, some meh it, some dislike it, other absolutely hate it, cannot please everyone at once. And I'm rather convinced that if you simply take V and IV, to a person who has no knowledge of GTA, but is a gamer(don't know how that's possible, but let's imagine it) he MOST LIKELY will choose V, because it looks better, feels better, sounds better, plays better I mean technically much more advanced. Anyway, for closure on this column, Watch Dogs driving is complete arcade, haven't seen anyone complain, why? Surely because it is not a GTA. The expectations, lower them, no game can be perfect.

  To finish off, what caught my attention is the name of the topic, "Replying to How can anyone defend Rockstar?", I don't think anyone is defending it, it's the people who like the game, simply appreciate the company that put effort to make it as good as they could. And you are seemingly, having a go at them as if calling them idiots, on matters of opinions, and frankly if you look it from the other side of the fence, a question just as legitimate in your terms would be "Replying to How can anyone have a go at Rockstar?" Just as legitimate. Peace out dawg.

    It's a bit annoying, that everyone tries to express their opinions by creating threads, not just by posting in one.

 

 

 

 

While I admire your enthusiasm I hate to tell you that '5 years of hardwork' wasnt hardwork for the reasons I assume your thinking (i.e to please their fanbase). That 5 years of hardwork involved creating a for the most part good game and executing flawless advertising and marketing skills (hence the crazy hype). It was ALL for a profit. So that is where my confusion comes in. Why defend a game company whos sole purpose was to obtain as much cash and turn over possible? Now before people mistake what I say and reply to me saying

 

"All companies do that"

 

I know. Which is why I am grateful to NOBODY who I give money to. They provide a service, I pay for it and I critique it however the f*ck I want. However when people defend it (note I said DEFEND not praise it) the way the GTA fanboys do. It sickens me as I know that is the very reason gaming has took a severe decrease in quality lately catering more towards casual gamers and online fanatics which is so sickingly sad.

 

EDIT @the gentleman above me (i am assuming you have a cock and not a vagina so forgive me if you are not a gentle 'man')

 

I too agree with 'some' of what you say. I however disagree with your underlining message of 'there is no need in multiple identical threads'. I will simply counter that statement by rewording what you said at the end of your post.

 

Dont like the threads? Dont read em. Simple


THemac
  • THemac

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2013

#125

Posted 02 October 2013 - 06:52 PM

 

 

                                    This is the big one, but read on, and use the                             head to understand what I'm trying to say.




Rockstar is seemingly getting a lot of hate, either that or the hateful handfuls are really itching to express their dissatisfaction with the game.

    When you look from the side of things, that hate is completely misguided :D I saw people call this game sh*t, because it had fewer interiors, and tougher car damage, those tiny details, that barely matter, and would surely not be noticed in any other open sandbox game, it's just weird. Or how the GTA Online, is biggest crap etc. etc. well sure the launch of it is a little of a let down, but people getting this upset about it, suggests that they are really itching to play it, so this hate might just be paranoic annoyance, and I would stop myself from calling GTA online total crap just yet, if the major issues were not fixed a month from now, then yes, but it's on it's second day, and people are freaking out, which is also funny as hell.

 

   Rockstar poured 5 years of hard work in this game and all it's aspects, they could do a yearly release, like Call of Duty, and earn double more than they do with their current model of business, but they don't, because they care about people, they care about their game's quality, and that is important.

  Now in my opinion, I think GTAV is a complete package, which offers high quality, and big variety, and in my eyes, is a direct sequel for San Andreas. Now people raise issue over features supposedly cut from the singleplayer, but they way I see it, the SP was about these 3 characters, and their journey, they had their houses, so buying real estate is pointless, creators of these characters, decided how they look, so customization involving characters is more limited, certain interiors were not needed in SP, so were not included, the story mode was clearly, more structured and tailored for a certain experience, and by far, it is no where near empty, it's teeming with stuff, and content to see/hear/explore/do. The hype got to people, and the funniest of all, it's people who hyped themselves, Rockstar did minimal marketing, maybe that forced the really excited people to over use their imagination, and then the game came out and surely, it is not perfect, no, it has flaws and limitations, like every other game, but that hype, and insanely high expectations caused people feel disappointed, and I think they shouldn't point their disappointment to GTAV, because Rockstar did a great job, the game is of highest quality, they should point their disappointment to their imagination. Now of course, I'm not saying that everyone do or should like this game, like in every other form of art and media, some people love it, some like it, some meh it, some dislike it, other absolutely hate it, cannot please everyone at once. And I'm rather convinced that if you simply take V and IV, to a person who has no knowledge of GTA, but is a gamer(don't know how that's possible, but let's imagine it) he MOST LIKELY will choose V, because it looks better, feels better, sounds better, plays better I mean technically much more advanced. Anyway, for closure on this column, Watch Dogs driving is complete arcade, haven't seen anyone complain, why? Surely because it is not a GTA. The expectations, lower them, no game can be perfect.

  To finish off, what caught my attention is the name of the topic, "Replying to How can anyone defend Rockstar?", I don't think anyone is defending it, it's the people who like the game, simply appreciate the company that put effort to make it as good as they could. And you are seemingly, having a go at them as if calling them idiots, on matters of opinions, and frankly if you look it from the other side of the fence, a question just as legitimate in your terms would be "Replying to How can anyone have a go at Rockstar?" Just as legitimate. Peace out dawg.

    It's a bit annoying, that everyone tries to express their opinions by creating threads, not just by posting in one.

 

 

 

 

While I admire your enthusiasm I hate to tell you that '5 years of hardwork' wasnt hardword for the reasons I assume your thinking (i.e to please their fanbase). That 5 years of hardwork involved creating a for the most part good game and executing flawless advertising and marketing skills (hence the crazy hype). It was ALL for a profit. So that is where my confusion comes in. Why defend a game company whos sole purpose was to obtain as much cash and turn over possible? Now before people mistake what I say and reply to me saying

 

"All companies do that"

 

I know. Which is why I am grateful to NOBODY who I give money to. They provide a service, I pay for it and I critique it however the f*ck I want. However when people defend it (note I said DEFEND not praise it) the way the GTA fanboys do. It sickens me as I know that is the very reason gaming has took a severe decrease in quality lately catering more towards casual gamers and online fanatics which is so sickingly sad.

 

it sickens you about the praise as much as it sickens us how annoying you are


jonc24
  • jonc24

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Jan 2006

#126

Posted 02 October 2013 - 06:52 PM

                                    This is the big one, but read on, and use the                             head to understand what I'm trying to say.
Rockstar is seemingly getting a lot of hate, either that or the hateful handfuls are really itching to express their dissatisfaction with the game.
    When you look from the side of things, that hate is completely misguided :D I saw people call this game sh*t, because it had fewer interiors, and tougher car damage, those tiny details, that barely matter, and would surely not be noticed in any other open sandbox game, it's just weird. Or how the GTA Online, is biggest crap etc. etc. well sure the launch of it is a little of a let down, but people getting this upset about it, suggests that they are really itching to play it, so this hate might just be paranoic annoyance, and I would stop myself from calling GTA online total crap just yet, if the major issues were not fixed a month from now, then yes, but it's on it's second day, and people are freaking out, which is also funny as hell.

 

   Rockstar poured 5 years of hard work in this game and all it's aspects, they could do a yearly release, like Call of Duty, and earn double more than they do with their current model of business, but they don't, because they care about people, they care about their game's quality, and that is important.
  Now in my opinion, I think GTAV is a complete package, which offers high quality, and big variety, and in my eyes, is a direct sequel for San Andreas. Now people raise issue over features supposedly cut from the singleplayer, but they way I see it, the SP was about these 3 characters, and their journey, they had their houses, so buying real estate is pointless, creators of these characters, decided how they look, so customization involving characters is more limited, certain interiors were not needed in SP, so were not included, the story mode was clearly, more structured and tailored for a certain experience, and by far, it is no where near empty, it's teeming with stuff, and content to see/hear/explore/do. The hype got to people, and the funniest of all, it's people who hyped themselves, Rockstar did minimal marketing, maybe that forced the really excited people to over use their imagination, and then the game came out and surely, it is not perfect, no, it has flaws and limitations, like every other game, but that hype, and insanely high expectations caused people feel disappointed, and I think they shouldn't point their disappointment to GTAV, because Rockstar did a great job, the game is of highest quality, they should point their disappointment to their imagination. Now of course, I'm not saying that everyone do or should like this game, like in every other form of art and media, some people love it, some like it, some meh it, some dislike it, other absolutely hate it, cannot please everyone at once. And I'm rather convinced that if you simply take V and IV, to a person who has no knowledge of GTA, but is a gamer(don't know how that's possible, but let's imagine it) he MOST LIKELY will choose V, because it looks better, feels better, sounds better, plays better I mean technically much more advanced. Anyway, for closure on this column, Watch Dogs driving is complete arcade, haven't seen anyone complain, why? Surely because it is not a GTA. The expectations, lower them, no game can be perfect.
  To finish off, what caught my attention is the name of the topic, "Replying to How can anyone defend Rockstar?", I don't think anyone is defending it, it's the people who like the game, simply appreciate the company that put effort to make it as good as they could. And you are seemingly, having a go at them as if calling them idiots, on matters of opinions, and frankly if you look it from the other side of the fence, a question just as legitimate in your terms would be "Replying to How can anyone have a go at Rockstar?" Just as legitimate. Peace out dawg.
    It's a bit annoying, that everyone tries to express their opinions by creating threads, not just by posting in one.
 

 
 
While I admire your enthusiasm I hate to tell you that '5 years of hardwork' wasnt hardword for the reasons I assume your thinking (i.e to please their fanbase). That 5 years of hardwork involved creating a for the most part good game and executing flawless advertising and marketing skills (hence the crazy hype). It was ALL for a profit. So that is where my confusion comes in. Why defend a game company whos sole purpose was to obtain as much cash and turn over possible? Now before people mistake what I say and reply to me saying
 
"All companies do that"
 
I know. Which is why I am grateful to NOBODY who I give money to. They provide a service, I pay for it and I critique it however the f*ck I want. However when people defend it (note I said DEFEND not praise it) the way the GTA fanboys do. It sickens me as I know that is the very reason gaming has took a severe decrease in quality lately catering more towards casual gamers and online fanatics which is so sickingly sad.
You're 100% correct. But complain about it to the right people and in the right place, ie: R*.
The constant whining is what's pissing people off in here. Literally 5 threads every 30 mins get started and contain the same tiresome complaints.

THemac
  • THemac

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2013

#127

Posted 02 October 2013 - 06:55 PM

he'll come back and say he is allowed to speak his mind as much as he wants and nobody can stop him but then bitch about people really liking the game and praising it like that makes any sense


Thebull94
  • Thebull94

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2013

#128

Posted 02 October 2013 - 06:55 PM Edited by Thebull94, 02 October 2013 - 06:57 PM.

I understand how 5 threads every 30 minutes is tiring however look at it like this.

 

1 individual complains to rockstar via a private email (for example). Rockstar get millions of comments (praise and hate alike) a day. They would likely dismiss it. However multiple threads all bashing specific aspects (broken cop AI, broken online etc etc) which are available for the whole world to see and Rockstar will get worried. As there game is getting publicly bashed (via threads and forums) rather than privately bashed (via emails). See how threads while can certainly be more annoying are infinitly more useful at getting points accross?

 

@THemac

 

Who is bitching about people praising the game? Here is a direct quote from my previous post I will HIGHLIGHT AND BOLD IT.

 

 

 

"However when people defend it (note I said DEFEND not praise it) the way the GTA fanboys do. It sickens me"


AlmightyHabbib
  • AlmightyHabbib

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2013

#129

Posted 02 October 2013 - 06:56 PM

 

 

                                    This is the big one, but read on, and use the                             head to understand what I'm trying to say.




Rockstar is seemingly getting a lot of hate, either that or the hateful handfuls are really itching to express their dissatisfaction with the game.

    When you look from the side of things, that hate is completely misguided :D I saw people call this game sh*t, because it had fewer interiors, and tougher car damage, those tiny details, that barely matter, and would surely not be noticed in any other open sandbox game, it's just weird. Or how the GTA Online, is biggest crap etc. etc. well sure the launch of it is a little of a let down, but people getting this upset about it, suggests that they are really itching to play it, so this hate might just be paranoic annoyance, and I would stop myself from calling GTA online total crap just yet, if the major issues were not fixed a month from now, then yes, but it's on it's second day, and people are freaking out, which is also funny as hell.

 

   Rockstar poured 5 years of hard work in this game and all it's aspects, they could do a yearly release, like Call of Duty, and earn double more than they do with their current model of business, but they don't, because they care about people, they care about their game's quality, and that is important.

  Now in my opinion, I think GTAV is a complete package, which offers high quality, and big variety, and in my eyes, is a direct sequel for San Andreas. Now people raise issue over features supposedly cut from the singleplayer, but they way I see it, the SP was about these 3 characters, and their journey, they had their houses, so buying real estate is pointless, creators of these characters, decided how they look, so customization involving characters is more limited, certain interiors were not needed in SP, so were not included, the story mode was clearly, more structured and tailored for a certain experience, and by far, it is no where near empty, it's teeming with stuff, and content to see/hear/explore/do. The hype got to people, and the funniest of all, it's people who hyped themselves, Rockstar did minimal marketing, maybe that forced the really excited people to over use their imagination, and then the game came out and surely, it is not perfect, no, it has flaws and limitations, like every other game, but that hype, and insanely high expectations caused people feel disappointed, and I think they shouldn't point their disappointment to GTAV, because Rockstar did a great job, the game is of highest quality, they should point their disappointment to their imagination. Now of course, I'm not saying that everyone do or should like this game, like in every other form of art and media, some people love it, some like it, some meh it, some dislike it, other absolutely hate it, cannot please everyone at once. And I'm rather convinced that if you simply take V and IV, to a person who has no knowledge of GTA, but is a gamer(don't know how that's possible, but let's imagine it) he MOST LIKELY will choose V, because it looks better, feels better, sounds better, plays better I mean technically much more advanced. Anyway, for closure on this column, Watch Dogs driving is complete arcade, haven't seen anyone complain, why? Surely because it is not a GTA. The expectations, lower them, no game can be perfect.

  To finish off, what caught my attention is the name of the topic, "Replying to How can anyone defend Rockstar?", I don't think anyone is defending it, it's the people who like the game, simply appreciate the company that put effort to make it as good as they could. And you are seemingly, having a go at them as if calling them idiots, on matters of opinions, and frankly if you look it from the other side of the fence, a question just as legitimate in your terms would be "Replying to How can anyone have a go at Rockstar?" Just as legitimate. Peace out dawg.

    It's a bit annoying, that everyone tries to express their opinions by creating threads, not just by posting in one.

 

 

 

 

While I admire your enthusiasm I hate to tell you that '5 years of hardwork' wasnt hardwork for the reasons I assume your thinking (i.e to please their fanbase). That 5 years of hardwork involved creating a for the most part good game and executing flawless advertising and marketing skills (hence the crazy hype). It was ALL for a profit. So that is where my confusion comes in. Why defend a game company whos sole purpose was to obtain as much cash and turn over possible? Now before people mistake what I say and reply to me saying

 

"All companies do that"

 

I know. Which is why I am grateful to NOBODY who I give money to. They provide a service, I pay for it and I critique it however the f*ck I want. However when people defend it (note I said DEFEND not praise it) the way the GTA fanboys do. It sickens me as I know that is the very reason gaming has took a severe decrease in quality lately catering more towards casual gamers and online fanatics which is so sickingly sad.

 

EDIT @the gentleman above me (i am assuming you have a cock and not a vagina so forgive me if you are not a gentle 'man')

 

I too agree with 'some' of what you say. I however disagree with your underlining message of 'there is no need in multiple identical threads'. I will simply counter that statement by rewording what you said at the end of your post.

 

Dont like the threads? Dont read em. Simple

 

Not particularly surprising that Rockstar and by Rockstar I mostly mean Take-Two, are out there to earn, yes. But it is clearly evident, they want to provide something good, as I mentioned, they would just milk out another GTA every year, just like Call of Duty, and people would buy it, just like call of duty, but they don't, because in a year, you cannot make a quality product, well at least not an AAA game, and I want to be clear, I'm not saying that they create games out of kindness of their hearts for free, of course no! But they do deliver a high quality product.


blackbriar
  • blackbriar

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2013

#130

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:00 PM Edited by blackbriar, 02 October 2013 - 07:01 PM.

First off am not trolling, as on this forum as a lurker I tend to notice that anyone with a opinion other then ''This game is a masterpiece'' is a troll. Secondly how can anyone defend Microsoft? No matter how much you try and tell yourself otherwise it's been a massive disappointment, I think most of you know this but are in denial. Everything from lack of interiors, lack of customization, lies, short story, not very engaging characters and glitches. Face it most of the budget on this went on the marketing so people would buy the game you know why? Because Rockstar is just out to get your money, A in game motorbike for £1.99? In game money bought with real money.? LOL
 
Rockstar do not care about you they made the story short and cut out lots of features in SP not to give you a amazing MP experience, no they did it to force you into going online to get these features you could of got in SP easily  such as houses and other online features, and they are doing this because that's where the money is made. The worse joke of it all is that even online is bad, the cut screens have major texture problems, I don't know about gameplay yet...Since I can't enter it. The player creation tool is nothing short of a joke, they all look like they are made out of wax. I could go on forever.
 
Long story short
Game is not a masterpiece far from it.
Rockstar fans are defending it because they are Rockstar fans.
They just want our money.
 
Give me valid reasons other then ''TLDR'' ''Shut up Kid'' ''Go play saints rock, COD etc..''


Ok, from what I have noticed on this forum anyone that post a thread like this the same day they create their account usually receives a lot of crap, in all honesty it does appear to be trolling. But benefit of the doubt given here.
Do you have any proof that the majority of the games budget went to marketing? If not than this is a guess or “opinion” of yours. Doesn’t make you wrong, but you didn’t give any facts to back it up either.

 

You went on to say “The worse joke of it all is that even online is bad, the cut screens have major texture problems” the texture problems might not be noticeable to everyone and many that do notice it most likely don’t mind. I for one never notice this kind of detail, but if I did I don’t think it would ruin the game for me.

 

I think this statement “I don't know about gameplay yet...Since I can't enter it.” is the most telling of your entire post, your frustration of not being able to play has angered you, and made you feel compelled to start a topic to tell us all about how evil R* is.

Now the money part “They just want our money” allow me to enlighten you how the world works, everyone wants your money. Don’t kid yourself, not one single company in the world produces any type of product with the hopes of breaking even. In my “opinion” R* did not maliciously produce an inferior product, nor did they mislead us of its quality.

 

Am I disappointed with how the launch has gone so far, yes sir I am. But if I’m patient I know the issues will be dealt with and I like everyone else will be online getting pawned by 12 year olds soon enough.

  • jonc24 likes this

AlmightyHabbib
  • AlmightyHabbib

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2013

#131

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:00 PM

I understand how 5 threads every 30 minutes is tiring however look at it like this.

 

1 individual complains to rockstar via a private email (for example). Rockstar get millions of comments (praise and hate alike) a day. They would likely dismiss it. However multiple threads all bashing specific aspects (broken cop AI, broken online etc etc) which are available for the whole world to see and Rockstar will get worried. As there game is getting publicly bashed (via threads and forums) rather than privately bashed (via emails). See how threads while can certainly be more annoying are infinitly more useful at getting points accross?

 

I'd dare to disagree, I let myself assume that if GTAV sold 15mil units in 3 days, than now, they have maybe around 20, now out of 20 million people who own the game, a few hundred complain on this forum, a few hundred on the next, a few thousand on facebook, youtube etc. etc. But 1 million in comparison to 20 is well not much, I mean Rockstar will listen, and if they agree on the problem might release a patch to fix it up a little. But so it seems that a minority are really loud on forums and etc.


Thebull94
  • Thebull94

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2013

#132

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:01 PM Edited by Thebull94, 02 October 2013 - 07:04 PM.

 

 

 

                                    This is the big one, but read on, and use the                             head to understand what I'm trying to say.




Rockstar is seemingly getting a lot of hate, either that or the hateful handfuls are really itching to express their dissatisfaction with the game.

    When you look from the side of things, that hate is completely misguided :D I saw people call this game sh*t, because it had fewer interiors, and tougher car damage, those tiny details, that barely matter, and would surely not be noticed in any other open sandbox game, it's just weird. Or how the GTA Online, is biggest crap etc. etc. well sure the launch of it is a little of a let down, but people getting this upset about it, suggests that they are really itching to play it, so this hate might just be paranoic annoyance, and I would stop myself from calling GTA online total crap just yet, if the major issues were not fixed a month from now, then yes, but it's on it's second day, and people are freaking out, which is also funny as hell.

 

   Rockstar poured 5 years of hard work in this game and all it's aspects, they could do a yearly release, like Call of Duty, and earn double more than they do with their current model of business, but they don't, because they care about people, they care about their game's quality, and that is important.

  Now in my opinion, I think GTAV is a complete package, which offers high quality, and big variety, and in my eyes, is a direct sequel for San Andreas. Now people raise issue over features supposedly cut from the singleplayer, but they way I see it, the SP was about these 3 characters, and their journey, they had their houses, so buying real estate is pointless, creators of these characters, decided how they look, so customization involving characters is more limited, certain interiors were not needed in SP, so were not included, the story mode was clearly, more structured and tailored for a certain experience, and by far, it is no where near empty, it's teeming with stuff, and content to see/hear/explore/do. The hype got to people, and the funniest of all, it's people who hyped themselves, Rockstar did minimal marketing, maybe that forced the really excited people to over use their imagination, and then the game came out and surely, it is not perfect, no, it has flaws and limitations, like every other game, but that hype, and insanely high expectations caused people feel disappointed, and I think they shouldn't point their disappointment to GTAV, because Rockstar did a great job, the game is of highest quality, they should point their disappointment to their imagination. Now of course, I'm not saying that everyone do or should like this game, like in every other form of art and media, some people love it, some like it, some meh it, some dislike it, other absolutely hate it, cannot please everyone at once. And I'm rather convinced that if you simply take V and IV, to a person who has no knowledge of GTA, but is a gamer(don't know how that's possible, but let's imagine it) he MOST LIKELY will choose V, because it looks better, feels better, sounds better, plays better I mean technically much more advanced. Anyway, for closure on this column, Watch Dogs driving is complete arcade, haven't seen anyone complain, why? Surely because it is not a GTA. The expectations, lower them, no game can be perfect.

  To finish off, what caught my attention is the name of the topic, "Replying to How can anyone defend Rockstar?", I don't think anyone is defending it, it's the people who like the game, simply appreciate the company that put effort to make it as good as they could. And you are seemingly, having a go at them as if calling them idiots, on matters of opinions, and frankly if you look it from the other side of the fence, a question just as legitimate in your terms would be "Replying to How can anyone have a go at Rockstar?" Just as legitimate. Peace out dawg.

    It's a bit annoying, that everyone tries to express their opinions by creating threads, not just by posting in one.

 

 

 

 

While I admire your enthusiasm I hate to tell you that '5 years of hardwork' wasnt hardwork for the reasons I assume your thinking (i.e to please their fanbase). That 5 years of hardwork involved creating a for the most part good game and executing flawless advertising and marketing skills (hence the crazy hype). It was ALL for a profit. So that is where my confusion comes in. Why defend a game company whos sole purpose was to obtain as much cash and turn over possible? Now before people mistake what I say and reply to me saying

 

"All companies do that"

 

I know. Which is why I am grateful to NOBODY who I give money to. They provide a service, I pay for it and I critique it however the f*ck I want. However when people defend it (note I said DEFEND not praise it) the way the GTA fanboys do. It sickens me as I know that is the very reason gaming has took a severe decrease in quality lately catering more towards casual gamers and online fanatics which is so sickingly sad.

 

EDIT @the gentleman above me (i am assuming you have a cock and not a vagina so forgive me if you are not a gentle 'man')

 

I too agree with 'some' of what you say. I however disagree with your underlining message of 'there is no need in multiple identical threads'. I will simply counter that statement by rewording what you said at the end of your post.

 

Dont like the threads? Dont read em. Simple

 

Not particularly surprising that Rockstar and by Rockstar I mostly mean Take-Two, are out there to earn, yes. But it is clearly evident, they want to provide something good, as I mentioned, they would just milk out another GTA every year, just like Call of Duty, and people would buy it, just like call of duty, but they don't, because in a year, you cannot make a quality product, well at least not an AAA game, and I want to be clear, I'm not saying that they create games out of kindness of their hearts for free, of course no! But they do deliver a high quality product.

 

 

 

No by Rockstar you mean Rockstar and if you think it is only Take Two seeking profit you are blind.

 

Also if you think about it they do milk GTA games.

 

GTA 3 release date: November 2003

VIce City: January 2004

San Andreas; October 2004

 

then the major gap came 

 

with IV being 2008

lost and damned 2009

ballad of gay tony 2010

 

then another gap

 

GTA V 2013

 

So if you look at how they spread it out they are genious and make it seem like they dont milk the series when infact they do.

 

Throw RDR and La Noire in there and they have continously made profit the whole time. I mean seriously 3 GTA games within 1 year?


WillyB211
  • WillyB211

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2013

#133

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:03 PM

"I don't get what you mean, a bright colour works great on the dark blue background, don't blame me if you can't read the text, I can see it fine. Most of the time you see dark colours is because the poster copied and pasted the black text, and didn't change the colour"

 

 

You have spelled color wrong everytime you write it.

It's driving me crazy :facedesk:


Flashify
  • Flashify

    IV IS STILL KING

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2011

#134

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:04 PM Edited by Flashify, 02 October 2013 - 07:05 PM.

This topic just saved me a lot of typing... And hate. :lol:

I'm a massive, massive GTA fan, and I don't see how anyone can say that this is even much better than IV. The games been out weeks and I'm already bored stiff - if this was 2008 with the release of IV being 2 weeks ago, i'd be on it non-stop doing some missions, then after a few hours go into a free mode with friends, or a good old game of cops n crooks for hours on end. Sure, IV had it's flaws such as lack of things to do, spawnkilling and awful ranking system, but that didn't matter because at the end of the day everyone was in a free mode (usually) at the airport doing anything from racing along the runways, dogfighting in the skies or just having a shootout in the carpark. It felt fun and it was fun. Five feels like nothing special. End of.

StarVisitor
  • StarVisitor

    GTA #1 FANBOY / Loyal R* Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013

#135

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:04 PM

Best game of all time and you still bitch. Troll.


Thebull94
  • Thebull94

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2013

#136

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:05 PM

 

"I don't get what you mean, a bright colour works great on the dark blue background, don't blame me if you can't read the text, I can see it fine. Most of the time you see dark colours is because the poster copied and pasted the black text, and didn't change the colour"

 

 

You have spelled color wrong everytime you write it.

It's driving me crazy :facedesk:

 

 

color is the American spelling.

 

If he is English it would be Colour and seeing as American is not a language it SHOULD be 'Colour' however that last part is my opinion that is valid. U mirin / come at me.


jonc24
  • jonc24

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Jan 2006

#137

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:05 PM Edited by jonc24, 02 October 2013 - 07:10 PM.

                                    This is the big one, but read on, and use the                             head to understand what I'm trying to say.
Rockstar is seemingly getting a lot of hate, either that or the hateful handfuls are really itching to express their dissatisfaction with the game.
    When you look from the side of things, that hate is completely misguided :D I saw people call this game sh*t, because it had fewer interiors, and tougher car damage, those tiny details, that barely matter, and would surely not be noticed in any other open sandbox game, it's just weird. Or how the GTA Online, is biggest crap etc. etc. well sure the launch of it is a little of a let down, but people getting this upset about it, suggests that they are really itching to play it, so this hate might just be paranoic annoyance, and I would stop myself from calling GTA online total crap just yet, if the major issues were not fixed a month from now, then yes, but it's on it's second day, and people are freaking out, which is also funny as hell.

 

   Rockstar poured 5 years of hard work in this game and all it's aspects, they could do a yearly release, like Call of Duty, and earn double more than they do with their current model of business, but they don't, because they care about people, they care about their game's quality, and that is important.
  Now in my opinion, I think GTAV is a complete package, which offers high quality, and big variety, and in my eyes, is a direct sequel for San Andreas. Now people raise issue over features supposedly cut from the singleplayer, but they way I see it, the SP was about these 3 characters, and their journey, they had their houses, so buying real estate is pointless, creators of these characters, decided how they look, so customization involving characters is more limited, certain interiors were not needed in SP, so were not included, the story mode was clearly, more structured and tailored for a certain experience, and by far, it is no where near empty, it's teeming with stuff, and content to see/hear/explore/do. The hype got to people, and the funniest of all, it's people who hyped themselves, Rockstar did minimal marketing, maybe that forced the really excited people to over use their imagination, and then the game came out and surely, it is not perfect, no, it has flaws and limitations, like every other game, but that hype, and insanely high expectations caused people feel disappointed, and I think they shouldn't point their disappointment to GTAV, because Rockstar did a great job, the game is of highest quality, they should point their disappointment to their imagination. Now of course, I'm not saying that everyone do or should like this game, like in every other form of art and media, some people love it, some like it, some meh it, some dislike it, other absolutely hate it, cannot please everyone at once. And I'm rather convinced that if you simply take V and IV, to a person who has no knowledge of GTA, but is a gamer(don't know how that's possible, but let's imagine it) he MOST LIKELY will choose V, because it looks better, feels better, sounds better, plays better I mean technically much more advanced. Anyway, for closure on this column, Watch Dogs driving is complete arcade, haven't seen anyone complain, why? Surely because it is not a GTA. The expectations, lower them, no game can be perfect.
  To finish off, what caught my attention is the name of the topic, "Replying to How can anyone defend Rockstar?", I don't think anyone is defending it, it's the people who like the game, simply appreciate the company that put effort to make it as good as they could. And you are seemingly, having a go at them as if calling them idiots, on matters of opinions, and frankly if you look it from the other side of the fence, a question just as legitimate in your terms would be "Replying to How can anyone have a go at Rockstar?" Just as legitimate. Peace out dawg.
    It's a bit annoying, that everyone tries to express their opinions by creating threads, not just by posting in one.
 

 
 
While I admire your enthusiasm I hate to tell you that '5 years of hardwork' wasnt hardwork for the reasons I assume your thinking (i.e to please their fanbase). That 5 years of hardwork involved creating a for the most part good game and executing flawless advertising and marketing skills (hence the crazy hype). It was ALL for a profit. So that is where my confusion comes in. Why defend a game company whos sole purpose was to obtain as much cash and turn over possible? Now before people mistake what I say and reply to me saying
 
"All companies do that"
 
I know. Which is why I am grateful to NOBODY who I give money to. They provide a service, I pay for it and I critique it however the f*ck I want. However when people defend it (note I said DEFEND not praise it) the way the GTA fanboys do. It sickens me as I know that is the very reason gaming has took a severe decrease in quality lately catering more towards casual gamers and online fanatics which is so sickingly sad.
 
EDIT @the gentleman above me (i am assuming you have a cock and not a vagina so forgive me if you are not a gentle 'man')
 
I too agree with 'some' of what you say. I however disagree with your underlining message of 'there is no need in multiple identical threads'. I will simply counter that statement by rewording what you said at the end of your post.
 
Dont like the threads? Dont read em. Simple
Not particularly surprising that Rockstar and by Rockstar I mostly mean Take-Two, are out there to earn, yes. But it is clearly evident, they want to provide something good, as I mentioned, they would just milk out another GTA every year, just like Call of Duty, and people would buy it, just like call of duty, but they don't, because in a year, you cannot make a quality product, well at least not an AAA game, and I want to be clear, I'm not saying that they create games out of kindness of their hearts for free, of course no! But they do deliver a high quality product.
 
 
No by Rockstar you mean Rockstar and if you think it is only Take Two seeking profit you are blind.
 
Also if you think about it they do milk GTA games.
 
GTA 3 release date: November 2003
VIce City: January 2004
San Andreas; October 2004
 
then the major gap came 
 
with IV being 2008
lost and damned 2009
ballad of gay tony 2010
 
then another gap
 
GTA V 2013
 
So if you look at how they spread it out they are genious and make it seem like they dont milk the series when infact they do.
 
Throw RDR and La Noire in there and they have continously made profit the whole time. I mean seriously 3 GTA games within 1 year?
Eh you are completely wrong
GTA 3 Oct 2001
Vice City Oct 2002
SA Oct 2004

IV April 2008
Also RDR,Max Payne 3, LA Noire were made by different companies within R*, not Rockstar North
Also, if you search online, you'll find R* talk about how they were forced ( by Take Two) to bring Vice City out within a year after 3. They didn't like doing that and have since been allowed time to properly handle the scale of these games.

Thebull94
  • Thebull94

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2013

#138

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:13 PM

 

 

 

 

 

                                    This is the big one, but read on, and use the                             head to understand what I'm trying to say.
Rockstar is seemingly getting a lot of hate, either that or the hateful handfuls are really itching to express their dissatisfaction with the game.
    When you look from the side of things, that hate is completely misguided :D I saw people call this game sh*t, because it had fewer interiors, and tougher car damage, those tiny details, that barely matter, and would surely not be noticed in any other open sandbox game, it's just weird. Or how the GTA Online, is biggest crap etc. etc. well sure the launch of it is a little of a let down, but people getting this upset about it, suggests that they are really itching to play it, so this hate might just be paranoic annoyance, and I would stop myself from calling GTA online total crap just yet, if the major issues were not fixed a month from now, then yes, but it's on it's second day, and people are freaking out, which is also funny as hell.

 

   Rockstar poured 5 years of hard work in this game and all it's aspects, they could do a yearly release, like Call of Duty, and earn double more than they do with their current model of business, but they don't, because they care about people, they care about their game's quality, and that is important.
  Now in my opinion, I think GTAV is a complete package, which offers high quality, and big variety, and in my eyes, is a direct sequel for San Andreas. Now people raise issue over features supposedly cut from the singleplayer, but they way I see it, the SP was about these 3 characters, and their journey, they had their houses, so buying real estate is pointless, creators of these characters, decided how they look, so customization involving characters is more limited, certain interiors were not needed in SP, so were not included, the story mode was clearly, more structured and tailored for a certain experience, and by far, it is no where near empty, it's teeming with stuff, and content to see/hear/explore/do. The hype got to people, and the funniest of all, it's people who hyped themselves, Rockstar did minimal marketing, maybe that forced the really excited people to over use their imagination, and then the game came out and surely, it is not perfect, no, it has flaws and limitations, like every other game, but that hype, and insanely high expectations caused people feel disappointed, and I think they shouldn't point their disappointment to GTAV, because Rockstar did a great job, the game is of highest quality, they should point their disappointment to their imagination. Now of course, I'm not saying that everyone do or should like this game, like in every other form of art and media, some people love it, some like it, some meh it, some dislike it, other absolutely hate it, cannot please everyone at once. And I'm rather convinced that if you simply take V and IV, to a person who has no knowledge of GTA, but is a gamer(don't know how that's possible, but let's imagine it) he MOST LIKELY will choose V, because it looks better, feels better, sounds better, plays better I mean technically much more advanced. Anyway, for closure on this column, Watch Dogs driving is complete arcade, haven't seen anyone complain, why? Surely because it is not a GTA. The expectations, lower them, no game can be perfect.
  To finish off, what caught my attention is the name of the topic, "Replying to How can anyone defend Rockstar?", I don't think anyone is defending it, it's the people who like the game, simply appreciate the company that put effort to make it as good as they could. And you are seemingly, having a go at them as if calling them idiots, on matters of opinions, and frankly if you look it from the other side of the fence, a question just as legitimate in your terms would be "Replying to How can anyone have a go at Rockstar?" Just as legitimate. Peace out dawg.
    It's a bit annoying, that everyone tries to express their opinions by creating threads, not just by posting in one.
 

 
 
While I admire your enthusiasm I hate to tell you that '5 years of hardwork' wasnt hardwork for the reasons I assume your thinking (i.e to please their fanbase). That 5 years of hardwork involved creating a for the most part good game and executing flawless advertising and marketing skills (hence the crazy hype). It was ALL for a profit. So that is where my confusion comes in. Why defend a game company whos sole purpose was to obtain as much cash and turn over possible? Now before people mistake what I say and reply to me saying
 
"All companies do that"
 
I know. Which is why I am grateful to NOBODY who I give money to. They provide a service, I pay for it and I critique it however the f*ck I want. However when people defend it (note I said DEFEND not praise it) the way the GTA fanboys do. It sickens me as I know that is the very reason gaming has took a severe decrease in quality lately catering more towards casual gamers and online fanatics which is so sickingly sad.
 
EDIT @the gentleman above me (i am assuming you have a cock and not a vagina so forgive me if you are not a gentle 'man')
 
I too agree with 'some' of what you say. I however disagree with your underlining message of 'there is no need in multiple identical threads'. I will simply counter that statement by rewording what you said at the end of your post.
 
Dont like the threads? Dont read em. Simple
Not particularly surprising that Rockstar and by Rockstar I mostly mean Take-Two, are out there to earn, yes. But it is clearly evident, they want to provide something good, as I mentioned, they would just milk out another GTA every year, just like Call of Duty, and people would buy it, just like call of duty, but they don't, because in a year, you cannot make a quality product, well at least not an AAA game, and I want to be clear, I'm not saying that they create games out of kindness of their hearts for free, of course no! But they do deliver a high quality product.
 
 
No by Rockstar you mean Rockstar and if you think it is only Take Two seeking profit you are blind.
 
Also if you think about it they do milk GTA games.
 
GTA 3 release date: November 2003
VIce City: January 2004
San Andreas; October 2004
 
then the major gap came 
 
with IV being 2008
lost and damned 2009
ballad of gay tony 2010
 
then another gap
 
GTA V 2013
 
So if you look at how they spread it out they are genious and make it seem like they dont milk the series when infact they do.
 
Throw RDR and La Noire in there and they have continously made profit the whole time. I mean seriously 3 GTA games within 1 year?
Eh you are completely wrong
GTA 3 Oct 2001
Vice City Oct 2002
SA Oct 2004

IV April 2008
Also RDR,Max Payne 3, LA Noire were made by different companies within R*, not Rockstar North
Also, if you search online, you'll find R* talk about how they were forced ( by Take Two) to bring Vice City out within a year after 3. They didn't like doing that and have since been allowed time to properly handle the scale of these games.

 

 

 

Yea I was wrong

 

Here is the real list

 

GTA 1: 1997

GTA 2 + London versions: 1999

GTA 3: 2001

Vice City: 2002

SA: 2004

Liberty City stories: 2005

Vice City stories: 2006

GTA IV; 2008

Lost damned, Ballad of gay tony AND china town wars: 2009

 

then GTA V: 2013

 

Still that looks like milking to me.


Magnet_man16
  • Magnet_man16

    C# Programmer

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2012

#139

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:31 PM Edited by Magnet_man16, 02 October 2013 - 07:35 PM.

YOU f*ckING R*!!!!! WE HAVE TO PAY TO DO THINGS IN A VIRTUAL WORLD?????? THAT'S NOT FUN. I RUN AROUND WATCHING MY BACK ALL THE f*ckING TIME.

 

WHERES THE FUN IN THIS? I EXPECTED TO BE ABLE TO DO THE TRADITIONAL FREE ROAM OF MESSING AROUND THATS FUN. NOT A VIRTUAL LIFE THAT REQUIRES REAL MONEY THAT'S JUST GREEDY AS f*ck. R* HAVE FINALLY LOST THEIR WAYS. Now back to GTA IV or San Andreas.

 

Hopefully they will have learnt not to screw their fans ect when GTA VI comes about.

 

P.S Never felt so pissed off at a game publisher. I hate COD but didn't balls that up, too much.


blackbriar
  • blackbriar

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2013

#140

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:38 PM

YOU f*ckING R*!!!!! WE HAVE TO PAY TO DO THINGS IN A VIRTUAL WORLD?????? THAT'S NOT FUN. I RUN AROUND WATCHING MY BACK ALL THE f*ckING TIME.

 

WHERES THE FUN IN THIS? I EXPECTED TO BE ABLE TO DO THE TRADITIONAL FREE ROAM OF MESSING AROUND THATS FUN. NOT A VIRTUAL LIFE THAT REQUIRES REAL MONEY THAT'S JUST GREEDY AS f*ck. R* HAVE FINALLY LOST THEIR WAYS. Now back to GTA IV or San Andreas.

 

Hopefully they will have learnt not to screw their fans ect when GTA VI comes about.

 

P.S Never felt so pissed off at a game publisher. I hate COD but didn't balls that up, too much.

you throw the controller when you lose don't you?


AlmightyHabbib
  • AlmightyHabbib

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2013

#141

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:39 PM

 

 

 

 

No by Rockstar you mean Rockstar and if you think it is only Take Two seeking profit you are blind.

 

Also if you think about it they do milk GTA games.

 

GTA 3 release date: November 2003

VIce City: January 2004

San Andreas; October 2004

 

then the major gap came 

 

with IV being 2008

lost and damned 2009

ballad of gay tony 2010

 

then another gap

 

GTA V 2013

 

So if you look at how they spread it out they are genious and make it seem like they dont milk the series when infact they do.

 

Throw RDR and La Noire in there and they have continously made profit the whole time. I mean seriously 3 GTA games within 1 year?

 

But you're wrong here, there is a very very very big difference in development of a game in current day, than it was in 2003, 2004. The standards have changed, back then they developed for weak hardware(compared to today's standards), so everything was much simpler to develop, take San Andreas the biggest of them all, animations simple, sound simple, 3D models simple, details very little, even cutscenes those were really short and simple. You cannot hope and compare it to today's games, where everything from smallest details have to be spot on, they are not automatically generated, they are crafted by hand, cities are very very detailed, animations fluid and nice, sound there are much more HQ effects and everything, 3D models are much more complicated and very detailed, I mean everything, is so much more complicated, so your argument of 3, VC and SA is quite invalid in today's standards. 

Concerning Ballad of Gay Tony, and The Lost and Damned, those were expansions, they were set in the same city, same physics, same driving, same everything, few new weapons, couple of new mechanics, few new animations(protagonists), few new interiors and a new story, half the length of IV, so again not really a new game, invalid argument.  So not quite milking, also milking is not the term for yearly releases, but a term for a new game that's pretty much the same as the last one, but at a price of a full game. 
 

Rockstar takes their sweet time, accompanied with effort and talent, and righteously earned the popularity they have today.


Rob Santos
  • Rob Santos

    VAGO

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2013

#142

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:47 PM

GTAV is an amazing game and it offers an open world that provides countless hours of pure fun. But the story line could be better designed and not just force the player to follow a path that is often just cruel and tawdry. Prostitution, torture and murder are part of life but people can choose to do it or not and the game forces you to be a bad character and justifies this with poor arguments and even melodramas like "... It's just a matter of survival in a rotten society ... "I love this game but sometimes I feel bad about what you must do in order to move forward in the story just to have access to open world. And many people are only interested even in this open world. It's just my opinion, written in "bad English." Thanks!


theworldfamous
  • theworldfamous

    all your game are belong to I

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2011

#143

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:50 PM

 

So... jou made a account just for this...

 

Yes because it's rather annoying seeing Rockstar fans being annoying and in denial that they messed up.

 

then don't come to a GTA fan forum you BLITHERING IDIOT

 

so far this game is a masterpiece for me, and I really don't feel like defending my opinion to some fool online. Why do you miss interiors? So you can stay indoors and whine about sh*t you don't like in the game as well? Just like real life!!


Thebull94
  • Thebull94

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2013

#144

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:51 PM

 

 

 

 

No by Rockstar you mean Rockstar and if you think it is only Take Two seeking profit you are blind.

 

Also if you think about it they do milk GTA games.

 

GTA 3 release date: November 2003

VIce City: January 2004

San Andreas; October 2004

 

then the major gap came 

 

with IV being 2008

lost and damned 2009

ballad of gay tony 2010

 

then another gap

 

GTA V 2013

 

So if you look at how they spread it out they are genious and make it seem like they dont milk the series when infact they do.

 

Throw RDR and La Noire in there and they have continously made profit the whole time. I mean seriously 3 GTA games within 1 year?

 

But you're wrong here, there is a very very very big difference in development of a game in current day, than it was in 2003, 2004. The standards have changed, back then they developed for weak hardware(compared to today's standards), so everything was much simpler to develop, take San Andreas the biggest of them all, animations simple, sound simple, 3D models simple, details very little, even cutscenes those were really short and simple. You cannot hope and compare it to today's games, where everything from smallest details have to be spot on, they are not automatically generated, they are crafted by hand, cities are very very detailed, animations fluid and nice, sound there are much more HQ effects and everything, 3D models are much more complicated and very detailed, I mean everything, is so much more complicated, so your argument of 3, VC and SA is quite invalid in today's standards. 

Concerning Ballad of Gay Tony, and The Lost and Damned, those were expansions, they were set in the same city, same physics, same driving, same everything, few new weapons, couple of new mechanics, few new animations(protagonists), few new interiors and a new story, half the length of IV, so again not really a new game, invalid argument.  So not quite milking, also milking is not the term for yearly releases, but a term for a new game that's pretty much the same as the last one, but at a price of a full game. 
 

Rockstar takes their sweet time, accompanied with effort and talent, and righteously earned the popularity they have today.

 

Sorry but that is the most retarded thing I have read.

 

Let me answer your whole post simply.

 

What is considered 'weak' technology now was considered 'STRONG' technology back then. If anything it would be harder back then to make games compared to now due to the lack of experience.


cartman_101
  • cartman_101

    GTA V!!!

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 May 2008

#145

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:51 PM

I don't think certain people realize the reasoning behind the anger. The fact of the matter is R* dropped the ball, simply. While the single player story is well written and emotionally satisfying and the graphics are quite beautiful, GTA: Online, a key component of the V experience, is a total mess. Rockstars apparent inability to judge the games popularity should not be an excuse. They saw the pre-order figures and should have been prepared for the large volumes of people. Not two weeks before launch, but much earlier perhaps even months beforehand. Considering that Online is a large part of the game, it should be expected that gamers will want to play that part.They don't go out and buy half a game, just like one wouldn't go to a restaurant and order half a meal. It's already sad enough that Online has been delayed for 2 weeks especially since the game has been in development for over 3 years. 

  • Khaos89 likes this

Thebull94
  • Thebull94

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2013

#146

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:57 PM

I don't think certain people realize the reasoning behind the anger. The fact of the matter is R* dropped the ball, simply. While the single player story is well written and emotionally satisfying and the graphics are quite beautiful, GTA: Online, a key component of the V experience, is a total mess. Rockstars apparent inability to judge the games popularity should not be an excuse. They saw the pre-order figures and should have been prepared for the large volumes of people. Not two weeks before launch, but much earlier perhaps even months beforehand. Considering that Online is a large part of the game, it should be expected that gamers will want to play that part.They don't go out and buy half a game, just like one wouldn't go to a restaurant and order half a meal. It's already sad enough that Online has been delayed for 2 weeks especially since the game has been in development for over 3 years. 

 

BUT L33TSTAR SAID TEHR ONLINZORZ WOULD BE BADZ AT TEH STARTZZZ

  • cartman_101 likes this

juls363
  • juls363

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2013

#147

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:59 PM

OP is entitled to his opinion, I just happen to disagree with nearly everything he said
 
-I do not really care about interiors
-I think the characters had very engaging and amazing stories and I enjoy each of them for different reasons
 
Long story short, I think GTA V is the most amazing game I have ever played, and so does the vast majority of the community, the ratings speak for themselves. If I thought the game sucked I would say so, I have nothing at stake, I do not owe Rockstar a thing and they owe me nothing. 
 
I do not quite grasp what people like the OP are trying to accomplish, if you do not like the game then simply stop playing it, and if you want to show your appall for the game do not support Rockstar anymore by buying their games. 
 
I rather liked the Call of Duty games when they first came out, but I became bored and did not like the direction the franchise went, so I simply stop purchasing them. No drama, no crying, no complaining, I just stopped purchasing their product, like I would do with any other product. It is just that simple...

 
What about the fact they could of make SP a lot better but opted to put features in MP instead to force us into MP, think how long it is untill they start charging us real money for guns or a monthly subscription because if Rockstar fans carry on with the ''Its all amazing nothing wrong attitude'' that's what going to happen. I went on Marketplace and there was a motorbike for £2... The game was only £40 to buy, £2 for a single motorcycle its disgraceful, its not what GTA is about. Also the customization...It's plain lazy, I hate to say it but if Saints Row can do it 10x better then Rockstar then it is just them not really giving a crap, with 10x the budget it's not hard to add in amazing customization. Not to mention they have basically released a broken product online, there isn't even any cars at night.
 
First it was the physics
Then the car handling
Then the car damage
Then Cars disappearing
Then Short story, collecting a suit is consided a misson...
Can only buy houses online for some reason
About 3 haircuts
Online Launch is atrocious
Obvious PED/Traffic problems online
Text problems
 
How can you defend Rockstar for this? They have had 5 years and millions of dollars and yet a lot is downgraded from IV.

Op gives valid points. I for one agree. It's a great game however it should've been ridiculously easy making an even better game

AlmightyHabbib
  • AlmightyHabbib

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2013

#148

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:02 PM Edited by AlmightyHabbib, 02 October 2013 - 08:06 PM.

 

 

 

 

 

No by Rockstar you mean Rockstar and if you think it is only Take Two seeking profit you are blind.

 

Also if you think about it they do milk GTA games.

 

GTA 3 release date: November 2003

VIce City: January 2004

San Andreas; October 2004

 

then the major gap came 

 

with IV being 2008

lost and damned 2009

ballad of gay tony 2010

 

then another gap

 

GTA V 2013

 

So if you look at how they spread it out they are genious and make it seem like they dont milk the series when infact they do.

 

Throw RDR and La Noire in there and they have continously made profit the whole time. I mean seriously 3 GTA games within 1 year?

 

But you're wrong here, there is a very very very big difference in development of a game in current day, than it was in 2003, 2004. The standards have changed, back then they developed for weak hardware(compared to today's standards), so everything was much simpler to develop, take San Andreas the biggest of them all, animations simple, sound simple, 3D models simple, details very little, even cutscenes those were really short and simple. You cannot hope and compare it to today's games, where everything from smallest details have to be spot on, they are not automatically generated, they are crafted by hand, cities are very very detailed, animations fluid and nice, sound there are much more HQ effects and everything, 3D models are much more complicated and very detailed, I mean everything, is so much more complicated, so your argument of 3, VC and SA is quite invalid in today's standards. 

Concerning Ballad of Gay Tony, and The Lost and Damned, those were expansions, they were set in the same city, same physics, same driving, same everything, few new weapons, couple of new mechanics, few new animations(protagonists), few new interiors and a new story, half the length of IV, so again not really a new game, invalid argument.  So not quite milking, also milking is not the term for yearly releases, but a term for a new game that's pretty much the same as the last one, but at a price of a full game. 
 

Rockstar takes their sweet time, accompanied with effort and talent, and righteously earned the popularity they have today.

 

Sorry but that is the most retarded thing I have read.

 

Let me answer your whole post simply.

 

What is considered 'weak' technology now was considered 'STRONG' technology back then. If anything it would be harder back then to make games compared to now due to the lack of experience.

 

You don't need decades for experience. Try this, which is easier? Go on google sketch, draw cube, and paint in texture. Or draw a cube, outline windows, doors, every bump on the building, then paint in texture, then do a texture overlay to add cracks and other little details, etc. etc. There is a huge difference in production. Oh even if the technology was considered strong back then, the companies knew that they cannot do more realistic world, because of the limitations of the hardware. I heard countless developers say that they wanted to make a very big game, with this and that, but couldn't and had to wait for hardware advances. Now this is fact, confirmed by developers(read few interviews, I specifically remember this being mentioned by Rockstar and Bethesda). So retarded? sure? Of course you got to defend your argument no matter if it's completely wrong...

P.S it wouldn't be more difficult to create game back then because from back then there was a huge rise of basement-from-moms-house developed games(the big cats of today's industry are from there), maybe a bit earlier than 2001, but around that time. Now you need a lot of knowledge in many fields, everything is way more complicated. Seem you are ill informed of game development progress, read up on it.


Thebull94
  • Thebull94

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2013

#149

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:05 PM Edited by Thebull94, 02 October 2013 - 08:06 PM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No by Rockstar you mean Rockstar and if you think it is only Take Two seeking profit you are blind.

 

Also if you think about it they do milk GTA games.

 

GTA 3 release date: November 2003

VIce City: January 2004

San Andreas; October 2004

 

then the major gap came 

 

with IV being 2008

lost and damned 2009

ballad of gay tony 2010

 

then another gap

 

GTA V 2013

 

So if you look at how they spread it out they are genious and make it seem like they dont milk the series when infact they do.

 

Throw RDR and La Noire in there and they have continously made profit the whole time. I mean seriously 3 GTA games within 1 year?

 

But you're wrong here, there is a very very very big difference in development of a game in current day, than it was in 2003, 2004. The standards have changed, back then they developed for weak hardware(compared to today's standards), so everything was much simpler to develop, take San Andreas the biggest of them all, animations simple, sound simple, 3D models simple, details very little, even cutscenes those were really short and simple. You cannot hope and compare it to today's games, where everything from smallest details have to be spot on, they are not automatically generated, they are crafted by hand, cities are very very detailed, animations fluid and nice, sound there are much more HQ effects and everything, 3D models are much more complicated and very detailed, I mean everything, is so much more complicated, so your argument of 3, VC and SA is quite invalid in today's standards. 

Concerning Ballad of Gay Tony, and The Lost and Damned, those were expansions, they were set in the same city, same physics, same driving, same everything, few new weapons, couple of new mechanics, few new animations(protagonists), few new interiors and a new story, half the length of IV, so again not really a new game, invalid argument.  So not quite milking, also milking is not the term for yearly releases, but a term for a new game that's pretty much the same as the last one, but at a price of a full game. 
 

Rockstar takes their sweet time, accompanied with effort and talent, and righteously earned the popularity they have today.

 

Sorry but that is the most retarded thing I have read.

 

Let me answer your whole post simply.

 

What is considered 'weak' technology now was considered 'STRONG' technology back then. If anything it would be harder back then to make games compared to now due to the lack of experience.

 

You don't need decades for experience. Try this, which is easier? Go on google sketch, draw cube, and paint in texture. Or draw a cube, outline windows, doors, every bump on the building, then paint in texture, then do a texture overlay to add cracks and other little details, etc. etc. There is a huge difference in production. Oh even if the technology was considered strong back then, the companies knew that they cannot do more realistic world, because of the limitations of the hardware. I heard countless developers say that they wanted to make a very big game, with this and that, but couldn't and had to wait for hardware advances. Now this is fact, confirmed by developers(read few interviews, I specifically remember this being mentioned by Rockstar and Bethesda). So retarded? sure? Of course you got to defend your argument no matter if it's completely wrong...

 

 

Again retarded.

 

You are comparing doing a simple task i.e walking up stairs to a more strenuous / difficult task, going up them using only your hands only to ask which is more difficult which is completely retarded.

 

Look at it like this.

 

Drawing a simple cube back then given the limited tools was as difficult as it is today drawing a more complex cube given the increase of tools available and more experience at drawing said complex cubes.

 

Rockstar created GTA 3 (for example) with what tools they had. Sure it would be pish easy to create it now with todays advancement of technology but  back then it was seen as an achievement. Just like IV was seen as an achievement now. In 5-10 years GTA IV will be pish easy to create and so on and so on. See my logic brah?


Khaos89
  • Khaos89

    Has a small willy

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2013
  • Antarctica

#150

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:11 PM

I don't think certain people realize the reasoning behind the anger. The fact of the matter is R* dropped the ball, simply. While the single player story is well written and emotionally satisfying and the graphics are quite beautiful, GTA: Online, a key component of the V experience, is a total mess. Rockstars apparent inability to judge the games popularity should not be an excuse. They saw the pre-order figures and should have been prepared for the large volumes of people. Not two weeks before launch, but much earlier perhaps even months beforehand. Considering that Online is a large part of the game, it should be expected that gamers will want to play that part.They don't go out and buy half a game, just like one wouldn't go to a restaurant and order half a meal. It's already sad enough that Online has been delayed for 2 weeks especially since the game has been in development for over 3 years. 

Thanks for that, finally someone who gets the point and can put it across well.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users