Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

this game does feel slightly rushed compared to san andreas 2004

101 replies to this topic
ZZCOOL
  • ZZCOOL

    http://www.youtube.com/user/taltigolt

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2009
  • Sweden

#1

Posted 07 October 2013 - 05:52 AM Edited by zzcool, 07 October 2013 - 06:00 AM.

Before i start, this is not bashing the game in any way these are my own honest opinions about it. in the end i absolutely adore this game but i think it feels rushed for what reason i don't know, san andreas just feels like a game they made exactly as they wanted v dosn't. v feels like they didn't do what they actually wanted with it for various reasons. the things i will state are mostly things current gen hardware could easily handle.

 

hate them if you want they are my personal opinions also note i nitpick alot as i care alot about gta as a game no other game has provided the unique experience gta does

 

first off the lack of vehicles like for example low riders i honestly can't see any car that could be classified as a lowrider other than the manana in this game.

i also think the game lacks military vehicles and unique vehicles like for example more than one single jet fighter

 

then theres vehicle customization it feels very limited to be perfectly honest vehicle customization in this game is pretty much the same as vehicle customization in iv

 

yes iv had vehicle customization you just couldn't control it the game controlled it for you cars appeared with special parts the sentinel xs is just a sentinel with different parts

 

i also don't see why they would remove nitro what reason did they have?

 

hydraulics is also something i dearly missed in this game

 

you can lower cars but you cannot lift them when rockstar games released the picture with trevor driving that big lifted pickup truck i thought it was a regular pickup truck that was lifted through customization

 

the map feels small not because you can see the entire thing from everywhere but because of it's size i honestly think it feels small just because of various sections of it being cut down in small parts

 

theres a small forest next to a road at the edge of the map that forest is so small it serves no purpose to be a forest it just stands there because it's a forest theres another forest area somewhere else but it still feels bland because theres too many roads in it not enough empty forest

 

it is hard to explain and i know i will get ALOT of hate for it but the map feels small it feels like it's 70% desert with small portions thrown in it just for decoration it just feels minature and that none of it actually serves a purpose theres no isolated areas away from the roads it just as i said feels minature thats my opinion

 

i wanted an entire red dead redemption next to los santos that could feel disconnected from los santos and everything else only bit i got that feeling is the tiny small bit next to fort zancuda again it is a very small bit that serves no purpose it is just there

 

here is a video showing all of red dead redemption

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=fAe9HtDK5ac

 

despite the same view distance it dosn't look or feel as small as v does

 

and lastly theres replayability and lack of interiors the city feels quite bland and not as alive as you would expect i would love to be able to plan heists in free roaming for money but you can't

 

the game is truly amazing but theres alot of things missing from it in my opinion it feels empty rushed and small thats all i can say it is in no way a bad game it is an amazing game but it could have been better in my honest opinion

  • lefantome, Deadly Target, Marcuskac and 1 other like this

WolfbackGames
  • WolfbackGames

    Keep things real.

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2012

#2

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:02 AM

Nah, this game feels pretty damned polished to me. If anything, SA feels quite rushed in comparison. Just look at all the copy & pasted assets which made up the world and features of GTA:SA. 


BettyBlueGT
  • BettyBlueGT

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2013

#3

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:04 AM

I don't think the game was rushed I think that Rockstar has their priorities bleeped up... And screwed over people for the crappy GTA Online.


ZZCOOL
  • ZZCOOL

    http://www.youtube.com/user/taltigolt

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2009
  • Sweden

#4

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:05 AM

I don't think the game was rushed I think that Rockstar has their priorities bleeped up... And screwed over people for the crappy GTA Online.

this is the kind of size i wanted (this would be possible even on current gen) with a little less trees what i mean is a part of the map that dosn't have roads just forest

 

AngelesCrest_chaparral.jpg

  • Marcuskac likes this

KING2dor
  • KING2dor

    Lingo Extraordinary

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#5

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:07 AM

Before i start, this is not bashing the game in any way these are my own honest opinions about it. in the end i absolutely adore this game but i think it feels rushed for what reason i don't know, san andreas just feels like a game they made exactly as they wanted v dosn't. v feels like they didn't do what they actually wanted with it for various reasons. the things i will state are mostly things current gen hardware could easily handle.
 
hate them if you want they are my personal opinions also note i nitpick alot as i care alot about gta as a game no other game has provided the unique experience gta does
 
first off the lack of vehicles like for example low riders i honestly can't see any car that could be classified as a lowrider other than the manana in this game.
i also think the game lacks military vehicles and unique vehicles like for example more than one single jet fighter
 
then theres vehicle customization it feels very limited to be perfectly honest vehicle customization in this game is pretty much the same as vehicle customization in iv
 
yes iv had vehicle customization you just couldn't control it the game controlled it for you cars appeared with special parts the sentinel xs is just a sentinel with different parts
 
i also don't see why they would remove nitro what reason did they have?
 
hydraulics is also something i dearly missed in this game
 
you can lower cars but you cannot lift them when rockstar games released the picture with trevor driving that big lifted pickup truck i thought it was a regular pickup truck that was lifted through customization
 
the map feels small not because you can see the entire thing from everywhere but because of it's size i honestly think it feels small just because of various sections of it being cut down in small parts
 
theres a small forest next to a road at the edge of the map that forest is so small it serves no purpose to be a forest it just stands there because it's a forest theres another forest area somewhere else but it still feels bland because theres too many roads in it not enough empty forest
 
it is hard to explain and i know i will get ALOT of hate for it but the map feels small it feels like it's 70% desert with small portions thrown in it just for decoration it just feels minature and that none of it actually serves a purpose theres no isolated areas away from the roads it just as i said feels minature thats my opinion
 
i wanted an entire red dead redemption next to los santos that could feel disconnected from los santos and everything else only bit i got that feeling is the tiny small bit next to fort zancuda again it is a very small bit that serves no purpose it is just there
 
here is a video showing all of red dead redemption
 
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=fAe9HtDK5ac
 
despite the same view distance it dosn't look or feel as small as v does
 
and lastly theres replayability and lack of interiors the city feels quite bland and not as alive as you would expect i would love to be able to plan heists in free roaming for money but you can't
 
the game is truly amazing but theres alot of things missing from it in my opinion it feels empty rushed and small thats all i can say it is in no way a bad game it is an amazing game but it could have been better in my honest opinion


Not articulated very well

I do not agree

I'm addicted to GTA online best game ever in my opinion
  • jason voorhees513 likes this

WolfbackGames
  • WolfbackGames

    Keep things real.

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2012

#6

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:07 AM Edited by WolfbackGames, 07 October 2013 - 06:08 AM.

 

I don't think the game was rushed I think that Rockstar has their priorities bleeped up... And screwed over people for the crappy GTA Online.

this is the kind of size i wanted (this would be possible even on current gen) with a little less trees what i mean is a part of the map that dosn't have roads just forest

 

AngelesCrest_chaparral.jpg

 

 

This is Grand Theft Auto, not a nature simulator. Dense forests like that wouldn't fit the play style of the game R* intends, and thus would be a waste of effort, money, and assets.


ZZCOOL
  • ZZCOOL

    http://www.youtube.com/user/taltigolt

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2009
  • Sweden

#7

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:09 AM

 

 

I don't think the game was rushed I think that Rockstar has their priorities bleeped up... And screwed over people for the crappy GTA Online.

this is the kind of size i wanted (this would be possible even on current gen) with a little less trees what i mean is a part of the map that dosn't have roads just forest

 

AngelesCrest_chaparral.jpg

 

 

This is Grand Theft Auto, not a nature simulator. Dense forests like that wouldn't fit the play style of the game R* intends, and thus would be a waste, assets, and money.

 

let me correct myself i meant small roads hidden by trees it is once again hard to explain but a more isolated area less open area

 

cabin in the woods with trails to take a bike or a car in in a dense forest


StarVisitor
  • StarVisitor

    GTA #1 FANBOY / Loyal R* Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013

#8

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:09 AM

ZZtroll at it again. 

 

You got the wrong game little baby, go buy Forza.

  • AndrewDeSanta likes this

ZZCOOL
  • ZZCOOL

    http://www.youtube.com/user/taltigolt

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2009
  • Sweden

#9

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:11 AM

ZZtroll at it again. 

 

You got the wrong game little baby, go buy Forza.

it is obvious to anyone here on this forum that you just want to provoke so please leave it is a waste of time for everyone

  • nitr0monkey and chilleverest like this

StarVisitor
  • StarVisitor

    GTA #1 FANBOY / Loyal R* Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013

#10

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:14 AM

Hey zZzzzZZztroll, go camping in the woods and you'll have all the nature space you long for so desperately. Go without a compass too, hopefully you'll get lost and won't find your way back to the forum.


Mr.Scratch
  • Mr.Scratch

    The Business

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2009
  • None

#11

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:15 AM

I agree, RDR had better wilderness.
  • infamousxx09 likes this

ZZCOOL
  • ZZCOOL

    http://www.youtube.com/user/taltigolt

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2009
  • Sweden

#12

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:15 AM Edited by zzcool, 07 October 2013 - 06:19 AM.

Hey zZzzzZZztroll, go camping in the woods and you'll have all the nature space you long for so desperately. Go without a compass too, hopefully you'll get lost and won't find your way back to the forum.

you actually make me laugh a year from now you will no longer be here and noone will remember you

 

anyway i will ignore you from now on no point in caring :)

 

 

I agree, RDR had better wilderness.

 

thats what i wanted in v just because rdr was different dosn't mean v could have had the same variety and size

  • StarVisitor likes this

018361
  • 018361

    Human

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2010
  • None

#13

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:27 AM

Yeah, SV is the real troll here. I am actually surprised that they haven't been banned yet. Anyway, I fell that the game was lacking in wildlife and had felt really desolate and small. I was surprised that at the very least they didn't just do something like cut and paste animals like snakes from red dead or something. Also the oceans could have have had more animals besides sharks and fish. Maybe Zee was right after all? With some of the decision they made it seems as if R* was actually drowning in a whiskey river and the song was just put in the game as a secret cry for help. Okay, I was joking on that last thing, but I do think they could have done better. 


Fluttershy Pony
  • Fluttershy Pony

    Change my stupid name.

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2010
  • None

#14

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:28 AM

I love the game, but I also think many aspects were done poorly, I think it's because Rockstar only care about that online mode they made, which means they only put effort into that, and don't care one bit for single player anymore. I liked the map, I thought it was fine.

 

Something poorly done is the AI, it's terrible, if they did a good job in GTA IV, why not improve on it rather than mess it up? Many areas felt rushed and could have been done a lot better, they just made a base aspect and left it at that, one example is the train, it's just an object on a static route, that's it, it never stops or does anything else. The lack of interiors got me as well, walking around doesn't give you the city feel because every building is just a flat texture with nothing going on except it lighting up at night. Many things were reused from GTA IV, and there's nothing wrong with that, so why not reuse some interiors? Console limitations did limit some things, but that doesn't mean they had to go lazy. Imagine if you could enter a bunch of skyscrapers? Or if things in the world actually progressed? Over-ambition got to Rockstar, by "most ambitious", I thought that meant they would do everything they could to make this game something else, but they only care about online. I don't know why you're comparing it to San Andreas from 2004, it was a great game for its time, but it had many aspects simply because making models and details didn't require as much effort back then.

 

Don't worry though, when the PC one is out the game can be greatly improved. I just hope it has better mod support and is actually optimised for PC. Hopefully it has some form of an infinite map support system too, then large forests could be put in without being limited by boundaries.


BettyBlueGT
  • BettyBlueGT

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2013

#15

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:31 AM

I love the game, but I also think many aspects were done poorly, I think it's because Rockstar only care about that online mode they made, which means they only put effort into that, and don't care one bit for single player anymore. I liked the map, I thought it was fine.

 

Something poorly done is the AI, it's terrible, if they did a good job in GTA IV, why not improve on it rather than mess it up? Many areas felt rushed and could have been done a lot better, they just made a base aspect and left it at that, one example is the train, it's just an object on a static route, that's it, it never stops or does anything else. The lack of interiors got me as well, walking around doesn't give you the city feel because every building is just a flat texture with nothing going on except it lighting up at night. Many things were reused from GTA IV, and there's nothing wrong with that, so why not reuse some interiors? Console limitations did limit some things, but that doesn't mean they had to go lazy. Imagine if you could enter a bunch of skyscrapers? Or if things in the world actually progressed? Over-ambition got to Rockstar, by "most ambitious", I thought that meant they would do everything they could to make this game something else, but they only care about online. I don't know why you're comparing it to San Andreas from 2004, it was a great game for its time, but it had many aspects simply because making models and details didn't require as much effort back then.

 

Don't worry though, when the PC one is out the game can be greatly improved. I just hope it has better mod support and is actually optimised for PC. Hopefully it has some form of an infinite map support system too, then large forests could be put in without being limited by boundaries.

 

Make a paragraph!!! That with the color of your text is madness..


Fluttershy Pony
  • Fluttershy Pony

    Change my stupid name.

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2010
  • None

#16

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:39 AM

 

I love the game, but I also think many aspects were done poorly, I think it's because Rockstar only care about that online mode they made, which means they only put effort into that, and don't care one bit for single player anymore. I liked the map, I thought it was fine.

 

Something poorly done is the AI, it's terrible, if they did a good job in GTA IV, why not improve on it rather than mess it up? Many areas felt rushed and could have been done a lot better, they just made a base aspect and left it at that, one example is the train, it's just an object on a static route, that's it, it never stops or does anything else. The lack of interiors got me as well, walking around doesn't give you the city feel because every building is just a flat texture with nothing going on except it lighting up at night. Many things were reused from GTA IV, and there's nothing wrong with that, so why not reuse some interiors? Console limitations did limit some things, but that doesn't mean they had to go lazy. Imagine if you could enter a bunch of skyscrapers? Or if things in the world actually progressed? Over-ambition got to Rockstar, by "most ambitious", I thought that meant they would do everything they could to make this game something else, but they only care about online. I don't know why you're comparing it to San Andreas from 2004, it was a great game for its time, but it had many aspects simply because making models and details didn't require as much effort back then.

 

Don't worry though, when the PC one is out the game can be greatly improved. I just hope it has better mod support and is actually optimised for PC. Hopefully it has some form of an infinite map support system too, then large forests could be put in without being limited by boundaries.

 

Make a paragraph!!! That with the color of your text is madness..

 

That is a paragraph, you don't need to make a new line every 10 words.

  • Cutter De Blanc likes this

CarimboHanky
  • CarimboHanky

    Rehabilited Glitcher

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013
  • Unknown

#17

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:43 AM

you want RDR-like wilderness but remember big cities dont have that nowadays. go to any big city and try to find a big spot of forest within the city, good luck with that.

the game feel great, the city looks great, one thing they should add is more custome parts for the cars.

InfernoV
  • InfernoV

    Dont you just hate keyboard warriors!

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#18

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:52 AM


ZZtroll at it again. 
 
You got the wrong game little baby, go buy Forza.

it is obvious to anyone here on this forum that you just want to provoke so please leave it is a waste of time for everyone

Lmao two trolls arguing ahaha

Anyways I stopped reading when you said gta v is the same as iv!
Really?
REALLY!?
  • StarVisitor likes this

Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

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

#19

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:52 AM

I don't think it's necessarily rushed compared to SA especially. SA is one of the most rushed GTAs ever made.

It's never felt to me like the game R* wanted to make. More of a statement than anything. It's full of bugs and glitches and shallow features. The entire asset side of it has always felt half assed compared to VC.

GTA V has its faults, but I'm not sure if I'd put down to being rushed. There was obviously a lot of time and effort spent on it.

Something SA lacks considerably.
  • Moth, Albert De Silva and Sting4S like this

ZZCOOL
  • ZZCOOL

    http://www.youtube.com/user/taltigolt

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2009
  • Sweden

#20

Posted 07 October 2013 - 07:00 AM

I don't think it's necessarily rushed compared to SA especially. SA is one of the most rushed GTAs ever made.

It's never felt to me like the game R* wanted to make. More of a statement than anything. It's full of bugs and glitches and shallow features. The entire asset side of it has always felt half assed compared to VC.

GTA V has its faults, but I'm not sure if I'd put down to being rushed. There was obviously a lot of time and effort spent on it.

Something SA lacks considerably.

yes san andreas wasn't perfect but it just felt like it had more things hovercraft for example it just felt bigger and more diverse


ZZCOOL
  • ZZCOOL

    http://www.youtube.com/user/taltigolt

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2009
  • Sweden

#21

Posted 07 October 2013 - 07:04 AM Edited by zzcool, 07 October 2013 - 07:06 AM.

 

 

ZZtroll at it again. 
 
You got the wrong game little baby, go buy Forza.

it is obvious to anyone here on this forum that you just want to provoke so please leave it is a waste of time for everyone

Lmao two trolls arguing ahaha

Anyways I stopped reading when you said gta v is the same as iv!
Really?
REALLY!?

 

here is a video showcasing my vehicle pack for iv

 

http://www.youtube.c...s1d7Ibk8CA#t=60

 

notice how all cars are customizable thats because i control it myself instead of the game

 

edit:this was meant as a multi quote not double post sorry


redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#22

Posted 07 October 2013 - 07:04 AM Edited by redx165, 07 October 2013 - 07:05 AM.

I don't think it's necessarily rushed compared to SA especially. SA is one of the most rushed GTAs ever made.

It's never felt to me like the game R* wanted to make. More of a statement than anything. It's full of bugs and glitches and shallow features. The entire asset side of it has always felt half assed compared to VC.

GTA V has its faults, but I'm not sure if I'd put down to being rushed. There was obviously a lot of time and effort spent on it.

Something SA lacks considerably.

Are you kidding me? VC is a DLC compared to SA. What did VC improve in gameplay? Nothing, same bad movement, gunplay, driving, and camera angle. 

 

The only thing VC added that was good is its story which was stolen from Scarface. 

  • jatiger13 likes this

Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

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

#23

Posted 07 October 2013 - 07:09 AM

I don't think it's necessarily rushed compared to SA especially. SA is one of the most rushed GTAs ever made.
It's never felt to me like the game R* wanted to make. More of a statement than anything. It's full of bugs and glitches and shallow features. The entire asset side of it has always felt half assed compared to VC.
GTA V has its faults, but I'm not sure if I'd put down to being rushed. There was obviously a lot of time and effort spent on it.
Something SA lacks considerably.

Are you kidding me? VC is a DLC compared to SA. What did VC improve in gameplay? Nothing, same bad movement, gunplay, driving, and camera angle. 
 
The only thing VC added that was good is its story which was stolen from Scarface. 

Why are you getting your panties in a bunch? I don't care about what's better between VC and SA. That's not what the thread is about.
  • Albert De Silva, Sting4S and Boozexlightyearxx like this

Osho
  • Osho

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2012
  • None

#24

Posted 07 October 2013 - 07:18 AM Edited by Sol86star, 07 October 2013 - 07:22 AM.

this game does feel slightly rushed compared to san andreas 2004

 

I agree


stockwiz
  • stockwiz

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2002

#25

Posted 07 October 2013 - 07:36 AM Edited by stockwiz, 07 October 2013 - 07:37 AM.

They did what other gaming companies are now doing, they are trying to extract as much profit from the game as they possibly can. Although they are being pretty quiet right now, I'm guessing we are not done with content and will see more DLC and tweaks to the online system. Online is the wave of the future for gaming companies... they can prevent users from sharing copies and pirating and each 'friend' has to buy their own copy of the game and not share, along with spending another $50 or more on DLC, $30 on microtransactions, etc. etc. ... they see dollar signs and are getting cocky about it, just not in a vocal manner like some companies (EA and microsoft) have been about saying basically "online is the future... deal with it" ... translation.. we are making tons of cash, and are going to rape you for more. :) ... so forget about local save files... all your saves are belong to us ala sim city 5! :)


trevdaperv
  • trevdaperv

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2013

#26

Posted 07 October 2013 - 07:44 AM

Hey Op how about you f*cking compare complexity of a game from 2004 and 2013 ? Then we can talk about rushing .... almost 5 years and he says it was rushed :catspider:


Cutter De Blanc
  • Cutter De Blanc

    One o' them Illuminati motherf*ckers

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2011
  • Unknown

#27

Posted 07 October 2013 - 07:53 AM

It doesn't feel rushed exactly, it feels.. like it's lacking something somehow, something I can't quite put my finger on. 


KemistiOMG
  • KemistiOMG

    Science, Bitch!

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2013
  • None

#28

Posted 07 October 2013 - 07:59 AM

amount of details in V, nuff said


saintsrow
  • saintsrow

    I thought I would only need this meme for a few weeks...or so

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2006
  • None

#29

Posted 07 October 2013 - 08:16 AM

I agree with the OP's main point as well as the examples he cites.  Similarly, GTA IV felt rushed, in the sense that many little straightforward game functions were missing. 

 

The GTAV, RDR worlds look absolutely beautiful and they are artistic masterpieces.  GTA IV also looks great, fantastic artistic work all around.  In terms of world design, GTAV is really the culmination of this generation.  :colgate:

 

But really, how can anyone defend the rest of the game design?  Sure, it has a few minigames and side missions, but soooo many little touches not there.  There were 5 years to decide and implement game functions.  Is the platform so stretched to the limit, that these little important things had to be cut?  The evolution of GTA game design did not keep up with evolution of Rockstar's world-building.  :bored:

  • Albert De Silva likes this

Soadisthebest
  • Soadisthebest

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2010

#30

Posted 07 October 2013 - 08:23 AM Edited by soadisthebestnumber1, 07 October 2013 - 08:24 AM.

I find it strange that there's always someone complaining about how a game feels rushed or unfinished.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users