Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

GTA V is a major disappointment

209 replies to this topic
nuer
  • nuer

    .

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2011

#31

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:10 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right...so he complains about missions being too easy but at the same time he's using auto-aim? Okay.

As if taking auto-aim off is going to make it so much more fun. An extra 20 minutes crouching behind a wall to get a shot? Ok.
 
You crouch behind a wall? No wonder.
Oh OK a car then. Is that your only defense of the game? Auto-aim? Must be a pretty shallow game, which, let's be honest, it is.
 
The fact that you use cover WITH auto-aim is the reason why you find it "boring". Also, not trying to defend the game, more like attempting to point how you could improve your experience.
That's my point though. It takes someone like you to have to point out how to improve the experience just by taking auto-aim off. There's literally nothing else you can do to make the game more exciting because it just flops hard.
 
What a shame. Too bad that your opinion won't matter to anyone in this case.

So what makes you think your opinion will matter any more than his? Hmm?
 
Wait, what was my opinion again?
Well I'm sorry that you can't remember your own opinions, and I'm sorry that you weren't taught how to reread stuff that you just previous debated about. Ffs.

 

 

I must have missed it....oh well.


Zodape
  • Zodape

    Brilliant Gentleman

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2013
  • Argentina

#32

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:11 PM

GTA V is my favorite GTA.

 

f*ck me, right?


streetx1xracer
  • streetx1xracer

    F*kn magnets, how do they work?

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2012

#33

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:11 PM

Oh god, the stupidity in this thread...
 
"The people with brains know the game isn't that good while the fanboys are trying to believe the game is good while its the same formula we've seen for years. "[/size]
 
This statement right here is the stupidest in the thread. Congratulations redx.

Coming from someone who thought the 360 version would still look better with all the proof I shown makes whatever you post stupid. 

*cough* fanboy *cough*

Go somewhere else if you want to start a console war. They are pointless as f*ck.

redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#34

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:13 PM

 

 

Oh god, the stupidity in this thread...
 
"The people with brains know the game isn't that good while the fanboys are trying to believe the game is good while its the same formula we've seen for years. "[/size]
 
This statement right here is the stupidest in the thread. Congratulations redx.

Coming from someone who thought the 360 version would still look better with all the proof I shown makes whatever you post stupid. 

*cough* fanboy *cough*

Go somewhere else if you want to start a console war. They are pointless as f*ck.

 

I'm not trying to start a console war. I'm stating a simple fact that GTA V looks better on PS3. Go click the link in my signature and see the truth. 


spamtackey
  • spamtackey

    Business Socks

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013

#35

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:14 PM

Okay I finished the article and have penned my response:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
#1 - San Andreas was the Pinnacle of Gaming
---------------------------------------------------------
 
This is a rather large warning sign because it ignores that since 2004 we have been introduced to better mechanics, better graphics, and better games. Games like Saint's Row embody the stupid silly over-the-top fun and games like GTA IV embodied the more serious artistic side of gaming. We also have had games like:
 
FEAR   (2005)
Portal (2007)
Assassins Creed (2007)
Red Dead Redemption (2010)
Oblivion (2006)
BioShock (2007)
LittleBigPlanet (2008)
Batman Arkham Asylum (2010)
Sleeping Dogs (2012)
 
These games are all stand-out games that people loved at the time of their release and all of them were released post 2004, which means that we're likely dealing with a San Andreas fanboy. 
 
 
#2 - The Map
--------------
GTA V provides one of the best and most detailed game worlds ever created. It isn't perfect, but it is still one of the best. It stands head and shoulders above games like Just Cause 2 or Saint's Row. My only complaint with it is that it is all on an island, so I don't feel connected to the rest of the San Andreas state. 
 
The article writer calls the map boring. Sure it's boring. Just like San Andreas had a boring map. You had a forest and a desert but all you can do is walk around. How many times did you go underwater in San Andreas? How often did you just walk around? I walk around a lot more myself in the HD era titles because there is actually a world to explore rather than, what feels like, a mimicry of one. 
 
What's worse is that they spend two bullet points complaining about the map. We only need one to make a well-written point Mr. Article Writer. 
 
 
#3 - Interiors
--------------
While I agree there aren't enough interiors, I don't like this guys attitude about it. My complaint stems solely from my belief that copy/pasting the restaurants from GTA IV wouldn't have been that difficult to do for GTA V and I would have accepted them. This is just whining about it and not offering anything constructive. 
 
Yet earlier in the article they praise GTA III for being super open and free. GTA III had one or two interiors. Salvatore's mansion and a toilet. Oh but yeah GTA III gets a pass because it was the first GTA. I forgot about that.
 
 
#4 - Bike handling
---------------
Honestly, the bike handling felt exactly like San Andreas to me, except we can't do super high bunny-hops anymore. 
 
 
#5 - Multiplayer
---------------
Okay, so we all know GTA:O has some problems, but if that alone is enough to make GTA V the most disappointing game ever then you have the wrong priorities IMO. 
 
#6 - Car Customization
-----------------
I've said before that I felt Car Customization to be an extra, a perk. Others have (in some ways rightfully) called me out on that by pointing out that it was very flexible and better than the SA version. So, whichever side you're on this one is out of my depth. 
 
 
#7 - Gun Customization
------------------
What was the article guy expecting? Electric bullets? Explosive Rounds? The ability to tie Mr. Raspberry Jam to the guns? The most they could have done was Laser sights but we don't really need that anyway.
 
 
#8 - Stealth 
-------------
The stealth in GTA V seems comparable to me to San Andreas. Neither are super-great stealth systems or are super-duper fun. I tend to avoid stealth if I can help it in both games.
 
 
#9 - Spontaneous Bank Robberies
--------------
Why is this another one of those points that people keep bringing up when they have too few legitimate complaints about GTA V? Rockstar never advertised spontaneous bank robberies. They advertised that we would have some control over the heists (which we do) and that the game was about heists (which it is). That's it. Anything else is expecting too much.
 
 
#10 - iPhone App
----------------
I hate it too.
 
 
 
#11 - Story and missions
------------
I don't know about you, but the story to GTA V was very movie-like. We were stealing subs, invading laboratories, blowing up hillbillies, fighting rival gangs, and pulling off some very awesome heists (and some lame ones).
 
The missions in GTA V are the most diverse the series has ever been, even moreso than San Andreas I would say. There are a few duds, like buying the masks, but overall there are an abundance of missions. Strangers and Freaks bring the overall count well over 100 and they're all fun to do. IMO.
 
#12 - Heists
-------------
In terms of rewards the heists were indeed disappointing, however in terms of fun I'd say most of them were well done. Going into the
Spoiler
was awesome and The Big One had me on the edge of my seat.
 
 
-------------
There is a lot that GTA V gets wrong but this article is just another one that seems to reek of entitlement. "I thought this game would be like this so I'm mad it's not!" It was clearly written by someone who adores San Andreas and anything that is not San Andreas just isn't good enough. At least, that's how I see it. 
  • xXGst0395Xx likes this

TheMasterfocker
  • TheMasterfocker

    Public Enemy #1

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States

#36

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:16 PM

 

Oh god, the stupidity in this thread...

 

"The people with brains know the game isn't that good while the fanboys are trying to believe the game is good while its the same formula we've seen for years. "

 

This statement right here is the stupidest in the thread. Congratulations redx.

Coming from someone who thought the 360 version would still look better with all the proof I shown makes whatever you post stupid. 

 

:facedesk:

 

The PS3 has better ground textures, congratulations. The Xbox has the better framerate, which, if I remember from our PM's, that "Right there alone makes it the better version."

 

Remember when you said that? You said that when early reports (forum members) said the PS3 had better framerate, but those reports were wrong. When I sent you better proof (The same article you have in your sig, actually) that showed the Xbox version had better framerate, you automatically went back on that.

 

But anyway, enough of that bullsh*t. No one cares.

 

You're still stupid, your post proves it. Anything else you want?


RolfStarGames
  • RolfStarGames

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2013
  • None

#37

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:18 PM

 

 

Oh god, the stupidity in this thread...

 

"The people with brains know the game isn't that good while the fanboys are trying to believe the game is good while its the same formula we've seen for years. "

 

This statement right here is the stupidest in the thread. Congratulations redx.

Coming from someone who thought the 360 version would still look better with all the proof I shown makes whatever you post stupid. 

 

:facedesk:

 

The PS3 has better ground textures, congratulations. The Xbox has the better framerate, which, if I remember from our PM's, that "Right there alone makes it the better version."

 

Remember when you said that? You said that when early reports (forum members) said the PS3 had better framerate, but those reports were wrong. When I sent you better proof (The same article you have in your sig, actually) that showed the Xbox version had better framerate, you automatically went back on that.

 

But anyway, enough of that bullsh*t. No one cares.

 

You're still stupid, your post proves it. Anything else you want?

 

Fanboy alert!!


streetx1xracer
  • streetx1xracer

    F*kn magnets, how do they work?

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2012

#38

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:20 PM

Oh god, the stupidity in this thread...
 
"The people with brains know the game isn't that good while the fanboys are trying to believe the game is good while its the same formula we've seen for years. "[/size]
 
This statement right here is the stupidest in the thread. Congratulations redx.

Coming from someone who thought the 360 version would still look better with all the proof I shown makes whatever you post stupid. 

*cough* fanboy *cough*
Go somewhere else if you want to start a console war. They are pointless as f*ck.
I'm not trying to start a console war. I'm stating a simple fact that GTA V looks better on PS3. Go click the link in my signature and see the truth. 

Ok so you're telling me at the size 24 font in your signature isn't screaming fanboy?

redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#39

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:20 PM Edited by redx165, 03 November 2013 - 07:35 PM.

 

 

Oh god, the stupidity in this thread...

 

"The people with brains know the game isn't that good while the fanboys are trying to believe the game is good while its the same formula we've seen for years. "

 

This statement right here is the stupidest in the thread. Congratulations redx.

Coming from someone who thought the 360 version would still look better with all the proof I shown makes whatever you post stupid. 

 

:facedesk:

 

The PS3 has better ground textures, congratulations. The Xbox has the better framerate, which, if I remember from our PM's, that "Right there alone makes it the better version."

 

Remember when you said that? You said that when early reports (forum members) said the PS3 had better framerate, but those reports were wrong. When I sent you better proof (The same article you have in your sig, actually) that showed the Xbox version had better framerate, you automatically went back on that.

 

But anyway, enough of that bullsh*t. No one cares.

 

You're still stupid, your post proves it. Anything else you want?

 

Did you even read the link? 

 

360: Has better frame rates but will slow down faster in time while the PS3 beats it ONCE in a while in frame rates in which it matters. Like where they shown a video of Trevor blowing up the truck at the trailer park. The 360 went down to 18 while the PS3 was still in the 20's. The PS3 frame rate is more consistent then the 360 which makes it better then 360

 

Once again TRY AGAIN. Read my link and stop being a fanboy. The proof is all in there by non bias people. 

 

@Street My link is providing proof that the PS3 version is better from NON bias people that do this for every game. 


AlexL
  • AlexL

    Homeboy

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2013
  • None

#40

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:28 PM

Outside link, joined 3 minutes ago.

 

Yeah, no.

I'm sick of hearing this bullsh*t about the join date, does it makes you smarter if you joined like 8 years ago? No!


TheMasterfocker
  • TheMasterfocker

    Public Enemy #1

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States

#41

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:31 PM

 

 

 

Oh god, the stupidity in this thread...

 

"The people with brains know the game isn't that good while the fanboys are trying to believe the game is good while its the same formula we've seen for years. "

 

This statement right here is the stupidest in the thread. Congratulations redx.

Coming from someone who thought the 360 version would still look better with all the proof I shown makes whatever you post stupid. 

 

:facedesk:

 

The PS3 has better ground textures, congratulations. The Xbox has the better framerate, which, if I remember from our PM's, that "Right there alone makes it the better version."

 

Remember when you said that? You said that when early reports (forum members) said the PS3 had better framerate, but those reports were wrong. When I sent you better proof (The same article you have in your sig, actually) that showed the Xbox version had better framerate, you automatically went back on that.

 

But anyway, enough of that bullsh*t. No one cares.

 

You're still stupid, your post proves it. Anything else you want?

 

Did you even read the link? 

 

360: Has better frame rates but will slow down faster in time while the PS3 beats it ONCE in a while in frame rates in which it matters. Like where they shown a video of Trevor blowing up the truck at the trailer park. The 360 went down to 18 while the PS3 was still in the 20's. The PS3 frame rate is more consistent then the 360 which makes it better then 360

 

Once again TRY AGAIN. Read my link and stop being a fanboy. The proof is all in there by non bias people. 

 

@Street My link is providing proof that the PS3 version is better from NON bias people that do this for every game. 

 

"Has better frame rates but will slow down faster in time while the PS3 beats it ONCE in a while in frame rates in which it matters."

 

"The PS3 frame rate is more consistent then the 360 which makes it better then 360. "

 

That's contradictory. You said 2 opposite things. Nice try though.

 

And how am I a fanboy? By agreeing that the PS3 looks better? No, I'm a fanboy because anyone that argues with you is a fanboy, because you're so close-minded it's ridiculous.

 

Anyway, like I said, no one cares. Are you gonna argue against you being stupid from your first post, or not?


TaCtiCaLTommy
  • TaCtiCaLTommy

    Homeboy

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013

#42

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:32 PM

 

Outside link, joined 3 minutes ago.

 

Yeah, no.

I'm sick of hearing this bullsh*t about the join date, does it makes you smarter if you joined like 8 years ago? No!

 

 

Calm down bud, count down from 10. Squeeze a stress ball. Beat your significant other. 

 

 

 

Kifflom 


drizzle1
  • drizzle1

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2013

#43

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:32 PM

 

Outside link, joined 3 minutes ago.

 

Yeah, no.

I'm sick of hearing this bullsh*t about the join date, does it makes you smarter if you joined like 8 years ago? No!

 

Thank you.


Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#44

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:35 PM

 

 

It was clearly written by someone who adores San Andreas and anything that is not San Andreas just isn't good enough. At least, that's how I see it. 

 

@ spamtackey

 

But that is the real issue here. GTA V had a BIG chance to dethrone San Andreas once and for all. This should have been the GTA of them all to finally make those so-called 'SA fanboys' that certain people on here seem to despise, change their minds and acknowledge a new GTA king. The hard truth of the matter, is that from what I've seen and heard so far, that is definitely not the case. As bitter a pill as it may be for some to swallow, SA still appears to be better than V for many, and for very legitimate and valid reasons. Don't need to go into them all over again. 


redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#45

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:37 PM Edited by redx165, 03 November 2013 - 07:37 PM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh god, the stupidity in this thread...

 

"The people with brains know the game isn't that good while the fanboys are trying to believe the game is good while its the same formula we've seen for years. "

 

This statement right here is the stupidest in the thread. Congratulations redx.

Coming from someone who thought the 360 version would still look better with all the proof I shown makes whatever you post stupid. 

 

:facedesk:

 

The PS3 has better ground textures, congratulations. The Xbox has the better framerate, which, if I remember from our PM's, that "Right there alone makes it the better version."

 

Remember when you said that? You said that when early reports (forum members) said the PS3 had better framerate, but those reports were wrong. When I sent you better proof (The same article you have in your sig, actually) that showed the Xbox version had better framerate, you automatically went back on that.

 

But anyway, enough of that bullsh*t. No one cares.

 

You're still stupid, your post proves it. Anything else you want?

 

Did you even read the link? 

 

360: Has better frame rates but will slow down faster in time while the PS3 beats it ONCE in a while in frame rates in which it matters. Like where they shown a video of Trevor blowing up the truck at the trailer park. The 360 went down to 18 while the PS3 was still in the 20's. The PS3 frame rate is more consistent then the 360 which makes it better then 360

 

Once again TRY AGAIN. Read my link and stop being a fanboy. The proof is all in there by non bias people. 

 

@Street My link is providing proof that the PS3 version is better from NON bias people that do this for every game. 

 

"Has better frame rates but will slow down faster in time while the PS3 beats it ONCE in a while in frame rates in which it matters."

 

"The PS3 frame rate is more consistent then the 360 which makes it better then 360. "

 

That's contradictory. You said 2 opposite things. Nice try though.

 

And how am I a fanboy? By agreeing that the PS3 looks better? No, I'm a fanboy because anyone that argues with you is a fanboy, because you're so close-minded it's ridiculous.

 

Anyway, like I said, no one cares. Are you gonna argue against you being stupid from your first post, or not?

 

The PS3 is more consistent in gun fights then the 360.

 

"The 360 does command a minor advantage in frame-rate during synchronised play, but for shoot-outs and high-speed hurtles down the city streets, the PS3 can sometimes pull ahead in these metrics"

 

This was proven in the video and is even stated by DF. 


RockstarFanboy
  • RockstarFanboy

    GTA #2 FANBOY / Loyal R* Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2013

#46

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:40 PM

 

 

 

 

Oh god, the stupidity in this thread...

 

"The people with brains know the game isn't that good while the fanboys are trying to believe the game is good while its the same formula we've seen for years. "

 

This statement right here is the stupidest in the thread. Congratulations redx.

Coming from someone who thought the 360 version would still look better with all the proof I shown makes whatever you post stupid. 

 

:facedesk:

 

The PS3 has better ground textures, congratulations. The Xbox has the better framerate, which, if I remember from our PM's, that "Right there alone makes it the better version."

 

Remember when you said that? You said that when early reports (forum members) said the PS3 had better framerate, but those reports were wrong. When I sent you better proof (The same article you have in your sig, actually) that showed the Xbox version had better framerate, you automatically went back on that.

 

But anyway, enough of that bullsh*t. No one cares.

 

You're still stupid, your post proves it. Anything else you want?

 

Did you even read the link? 

 

360: Has better frame rates but will slow down faster in time while the PS3 beats it ONCE in a while in frame rates in which it matters. Like where they shown a video of Trevor blowing up the truck at the trailer park. The 360 went down to 18 while the PS3 was still in the 20's. The PS3 frame rate is more consistent then the 360 which makes it better then 360

 

Once again TRY AGAIN. Read my link and stop being a fanboy. The proof is all in there by non bias people. 

 

@Street My link is providing proof that the PS3 version is better from NON bias people that do this for every game. 

 

"Has better frame rates but will slow down faster in time while the PS3 beats it ONCE in a while in frame rates in which it matters."

 

"The PS3 frame rate is more consistent then the 360 which makes it better then 360. "

 

That's contradictory. You said 2 opposite things. Nice try though.

 

And how am I a fanboy? By agreeing that the PS3 looks better? No, I'm a fanboy because anyone that argues with you is a fanboy, because you're so close-minded it's ridiculous.

 

Anyway, like I said, no one cares. Are you gonna argue against you being stupid from your first post, or not?

 

no use arguing with him... his opinion is above anyone else so don't waste your time... if you like the game and he doesn't he will do anything in his power to make you not like the game and convince you it sucks (although it has been more than proven that V is epic but that's not the point here)... same goes with this ps3/xbox argument so you're just wasting your time with him :/


NYC PATROL
  • NYC PATROL

    "Patrolling and Observing Forums Since 2005"

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2008
  • United-States

#47

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:42 PM Edited by NYC PATROL, 03 November 2013 - 07:42 PM.

I don't agree with that:

 

Multiplayer is boring

Gun, Car customization lack (Sure they aren't extremely deep but still great additions to the game)

 

A kind of agree with:

 

The map design could have been a little better. (Still the best GTA Map to date imo)

 

Needed more forests But obviously console limitations.....

 

 

And a big I don't agree on is:

 

GTA V is not a major flop. Sure it has its falls but it shines in a ton of spots.


redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#48

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:42 PM

 

 

 

 

 

Oh god, the stupidity in this thread...

 

"The people with brains know the game isn't that good while the fanboys are trying to believe the game is good while its the same formula we've seen for years. "

 

This statement right here is the stupidest in the thread. Congratulations redx.

Coming from someone who thought the 360 version would still look better with all the proof I shown makes whatever you post stupid. 

 

:facedesk:

 

The PS3 has better ground textures, congratulations. The Xbox has the better framerate, which, if I remember from our PM's, that "Right there alone makes it the better version."

 

Remember when you said that? You said that when early reports (forum members) said the PS3 had better framerate, but those reports were wrong. When I sent you better proof (The same article you have in your sig, actually) that showed the Xbox version had better framerate, you automatically went back on that.

 

But anyway, enough of that bullsh*t. No one cares.

 

You're still stupid, your post proves it. Anything else you want?

 

Did you even read the link? 

 

360: Has better frame rates but will slow down faster in time while the PS3 beats it ONCE in a while in frame rates in which it matters. Like where they shown a video of Trevor blowing up the truck at the trailer park. The 360 went down to 18 while the PS3 was still in the 20's. The PS3 frame rate is more consistent then the 360 which makes it better then 360

 

Once again TRY AGAIN. Read my link and stop being a fanboy. The proof is all in there by non bias people. 

 

@Street My link is providing proof that the PS3 version is better from NON bias people that do this for every game. 

 

"Has better frame rates but will slow down faster in time while the PS3 beats it ONCE in a while in frame rates in which it matters."

 

"The PS3 frame rate is more consistent then the 360 which makes it better then 360. "

 

That's contradictory. You said 2 opposite things. Nice try though.

 

And how am I a fanboy? By agreeing that the PS3 looks better? No, I'm a fanboy because anyone that argues with you is a fanboy, because you're so close-minded it's ridiculous.

 

Anyway, like I said, no one cares. Are you gonna argue against you being stupid from your first post, or not?

 

no use arguing with him... his opinion is above anyone else so don't waste your time... if you like the game and he doesn't he will do anything in his power to make you not like the game and convince you it sucks (although it has been more than proven that V is epic but that's not the point here)... same goes with this ps3/xbox argument so you're just wasting your time with him :/

 

Your opinion is above everyone else. All you do in here is waste time sucking Rockstar dick saying this game is a masterpiece with no flaws just like your friend/your second account. If anything no one should listen to you cause you even have it stated in your name your a fanboy with a HUGE bias feel to Rockstar.


TheMasterfocker
  • TheMasterfocker

    Public Enemy #1

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States

#49

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:43 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh god, the stupidity in this thread...

 

"The people with brains know the game isn't that good while the fanboys are trying to believe the game is good while its the same formula we've seen for years. "

 

This statement right here is the stupidest in the thread. Congratulations redx.

Coming from someone who thought the 360 version would still look better with all the proof I shown makes whatever you post stupid. 

 

:facedesk:

 

The PS3 has better ground textures, congratulations. The Xbox has the better framerate, which, if I remember from our PM's, that "Right there alone makes it the better version."

 

Remember when you said that? You said that when early reports (forum members) said the PS3 had better framerate, but those reports were wrong. When I sent you better proof (The same article you have in your sig, actually) that showed the Xbox version had better framerate, you automatically went back on that.

 

But anyway, enough of that bullsh*t. No one cares.

 

You're still stupid, your post proves it. Anything else you want?

 

Did you even read the link? 

 

360: Has better frame rates but will slow down faster in time while the PS3 beats it ONCE in a while in frame rates in which it matters. Like where they shown a video of Trevor blowing up the truck at the trailer park. The 360 went down to 18 while the PS3 was still in the 20's. The PS3 frame rate is more consistent then the 360 which makes it better then 360

 

Once again TRY AGAIN. Read my link and stop being a fanboy. The proof is all in there by non bias people. 

 

@Street My link is providing proof that the PS3 version is better from NON bias people that do this for every game. 

 

"Has better frame rates but will slow down faster in time while the PS3 beats it ONCE in a while in frame rates in which it matters."

 

"The PS3 frame rate is more consistent then the 360 which makes it better then 360. "

 

That's contradictory. You said 2 opposite things. Nice try though.

 

And how am I a fanboy? By agreeing that the PS3 looks better? No, I'm a fanboy because anyone that argues with you is a fanboy, because you're so close-minded it's ridiculous.

 

Anyway, like I said, no one cares. Are you gonna argue against you being stupid from your first post, or not?

 

The PS3 is more consistent in gun fights then the 360.

 

"The 360 does command a minor advantage in frame-rate during synchronised play, but for shoot-outs and high-speed hurtles down the city streets, the PS3 can sometimes pull ahead in these metrics"

 

This was proven in the video and is even stated by DF. 

 

You didn't say that though. You said the PS3 gets better frames sometimes, but then you said it was more consistent. What you say now to cover your ass doesn't matter.

 

Anyway, you're not gonna defend against me saying you're stupid, so I'm done. I'm not getting into a console war when I barely even play on consoles.


redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#50

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:47 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh god, the stupidity in this thread...

 

"The people with brains know the game isn't that good while the fanboys are trying to believe the game is good while its the same formula we've seen for years. "

 

This statement right here is the stupidest in the thread. Congratulations redx.

Coming from someone who thought the 360 version would still look better with all the proof I shown makes whatever you post stupid. 

 

:facedesk:

 

The PS3 has better ground textures, congratulations. The Xbox has the better framerate, which, if I remember from our PM's, that "Right there alone makes it the better version."

 

Remember when you said that? You said that when early reports (forum members) said the PS3 had better framerate, but those reports were wrong. When I sent you better proof (The same article you have in your sig, actually) that showed the Xbox version had better framerate, you automatically went back on that.

 

But anyway, enough of that bullsh*t. No one cares.

 

You're still stupid, your post proves it. Anything else you want?

 

Did you even read the link? 

 

360: Has better frame rates but will slow down faster in time while the PS3 beats it ONCE in a while in frame rates in which it matters. Like where they shown a video of Trevor blowing up the truck at the trailer park. The 360 went down to 18 while the PS3 was still in the 20's. The PS3 frame rate is more consistent then the 360 which makes it better then 360

 

Once again TRY AGAIN. Read my link and stop being a fanboy. The proof is all in there by non bias people. 

 

@Street My link is providing proof that the PS3 version is better from NON bias people that do this for every game. 

 

"Has better frame rates but will slow down faster in time while the PS3 beats it ONCE in a while in frame rates in which it matters."

 

"The PS3 frame rate is more consistent then the 360 which makes it better then 360. "

 

That's contradictory. You said 2 opposite things. Nice try though.

 

And how am I a fanboy? By agreeing that the PS3 looks better? No, I'm a fanboy because anyone that argues with you is a fanboy, because you're so close-minded it's ridiculous.

 

Anyway, like I said, no one cares. Are you gonna argue against you being stupid from your first post, or not?

 

The PS3 is more consistent in gun fights then the 360.

 

"The 360 does command a minor advantage in frame-rate during synchronised play, but for shoot-outs and high-speed hurtles down the city streets, the PS3 can sometimes pull ahead in these metrics"

 

This was proven in the video and is even stated by DF. 

 

You didn't say that though. You said the PS3 gets better frames sometimes, but then you said it was more consistent. What you say now to cover your ass doesn't matter.

 

Anyway, you're not gonna defend against me saying you're stupid, so I'm done. I'm not getting into a console war when I barely even play on consoles.

 

What do you think Sometime means? In gun fights, explosives  and high speed racing that's where the PS3 shines. Hint Sometimes because we are not always in one of them. While the 360 shines in just walking, driving, and etc... 

 

In those sometimes its more consistent. How does that not make any sense? I swear you M$ fanboys always love to twist words around. 


spamtackey
  • spamtackey

    Business Socks

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013

#51

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:51 PM

 

 

 

It was clearly written by someone who adores San Andreas and anything that is not San Andreas just isn't good enough. At least, that's how I see it. 

 

@ spamtackey

 

But that is the real issue here. GTA V had a BIG chance to dethrone San Andreas once and for all. This should have been the GTA of them all to finally make those so-called 'SA fanboys' that certain people on here seem to despise, change their minds and acknowledge a new GTA king. The hard truth of the matter, is that from what I've seen and heard so far, that is definitely not the case. As bitter a pill as it may be for some to swallow, SA still appears to be better than V for many, and for very legitimate and valid reasons. Don't need to go into them all over again. 

 

 

I have yet to see any legitimate argument for why GTA V should have been SA 2.0 to please those fanboys. The most I hear is "gang wars, burglaries, three cities, CJ!!" and it's starting to get on my nerves. 


17th
  • 17th

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013

#52

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:52 PM Edited by 17th, 03 November 2013 - 07:57 PM.

100% agree. This game is just disappointing. They promised us a lot more. I know I'm repeating myself, but it's true. For example planning hest. They told us that we will be able to plan heists, and that heists will be amazing like heist mission in GTA IV. But no. We are able to choose 1 from 2 scripted scenarios. And that's all.

Or map. Underwater is completely waste of space and time, it's extremaly boring, and submarine is too slow. And we even can't dive to ocean floor. Instead of this they should create more terrain behind Chilliad, or make chilliad bigger, and create snowy terrain on the top.

Also gun customization is big fail. Why we can't unmount silencer? Or turn off flashlight?

Why the hell there's no nitro in Los Santos Customs?

Why the f*ck they created inventory in multiplayer, but no in singleplayer?

Why we can't drive train?

Why they blocked almost every interior available in missions?

Why they made army wanted level available only in missions?

Why there are sh*tload of bugs, when they delayed it for fixing bugs?

Why the hell they talked about V like about revolution in gaming while it's not even evolution?! It's just GTA IV with better graphics, new story, map, weapons and cars.

Very poorly for 5 years work.

 

EDIT: Also when we are talking about San Andreas 2, we are not talking about gangs and 3 cities. We are talking about GTA KING. About THE BEST GTA EVER. V should be SA2, but it's not.

  • Immigration and carl turtle like this

TheMasterfocker
  • TheMasterfocker

    Public Enemy #1

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States

#53

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:55 PM Edited by TheMasterfocker, 03 November 2013 - 08:05 PM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh god, the stupidity in this thread...

 

"The people with brains know the game isn't that good while the fanboys are trying to believe the game is good while its the same formula we've seen for years. "

 

This statement right here is the stupidest in the thread. Congratulations redx.

Coming from someone who thought the 360 version would still look better with all the proof I shown makes whatever you post stupid. 

 

:facedesk:

 

The PS3 has better ground textures, congratulations. The Xbox has the better framerate, which, if I remember from our PM's, that "Right there alone makes it the better version."

 

Remember when you said that? You said that when early reports (forum members) said the PS3 had better framerate, but those reports were wrong. When I sent you better proof (The same article you have in your sig, actually) that showed the Xbox version had better framerate, you automatically went back on that.

 

But anyway, enough of that bullsh*t. No one cares.

 

You're still stupid, your post proves it. Anything else you want?

 

Did you even read the link? 

 

360: Has better frame rates but will slow down faster in time while the PS3 beats it ONCE in a while in frame rates in which it matters. Like where they shown a video of Trevor blowing up the truck at the trailer park. The 360 went down to 18 while the PS3 was still in the 20's. The PS3 frame rate is more consistent then the 360 which makes it better then 360

 

Once again TRY AGAIN. Read my link and stop being a fanboy. The proof is all in there by non bias people. 

 

@Street My link is providing proof that the PS3 version is better from NON bias people that do this for every game. 

 

"Has better frame rates but will slow down faster in time while the PS3 beats it ONCE in a while in frame rates in which it matters."

 

"The PS3 frame rate is more consistent then the 360 which makes it better then 360. "

 

That's contradictory. You said 2 opposite things. Nice try though.

 

And how am I a fanboy? By agreeing that the PS3 looks better? No, I'm a fanboy because anyone that argues with you is a fanboy, because you're so close-minded it's ridiculous.

 

Anyway, like I said, no one cares. Are you gonna argue against you being stupid from your first post, or not?

 

The PS3 is more consistent in gun fights then the 360.

 

"The 360 does command a minor advantage in frame-rate during synchronised play, but for shoot-outs and high-speed hurtles down the city streets, the PS3 can sometimes pull ahead in these metrics"

 

This was proven in the video and is even stated by DF. 

 

You didn't say that though. You said the PS3 gets better frames sometimes, but then you said it was more consistent. What you say now to cover your ass doesn't matter.

 

Anyway, you're not gonna defend against me saying you're stupid, so I'm done. I'm not getting into a console war when I barely even play on consoles.

 

What do you think Sometime means? In gun fights, explosives  and high speed racing that's where the PS3 shines. Hint Sometimes because we are not always in one of them. While the 360 shines in just walking, driving, and etc... 

 

In those sometimes its more consistent. How does that not make any sense? I swear you M$ fanboys always love to twist words around. 

 

You got me to come back. Congratulations. Now, let's prove you wrong again.

 

"360: Has better frame rates but will slow down faster in time while the PS3 beats it ONCE in a while in frame rates in which it matters. Like where they shown a video of Trevor blowing up the truck at the trailer park. The 360 went down to 18 while the PS3 was still in the 20's. The PS3 frame rate is more consistent then the 360 which makes it better then 360. "

 

This is your whole post. You put "while the PS3 beats it ONCE in a while in frame rates"

 

You even f*cking capped the part that proved your post was contradictory. You said the PS3 beat it once in a while. Once in a while. Let me say it again. Once. In. A. While.

 

And then, somehow, you get to "The PS3 frame rate is more consistent that then 360"

 

That goes against what you just said in your last sentence. How can it be more consistent if it's only better once in a while, like you so lovingly put in caps in your own post? It can't. You can't even get your own arguments right.

 

And oh yeah, I'm such a big Microsoft fanboy! I mean, I play on my Xbox all day, not on my awesome gaming PC! I have everything Xbox offers, because I'm such a big fanboy!

 

Seriously, get a clue.

 

17th:

 

"For example planning hest. They told us that we will be able to plan heists, and that heists will be amazing like heist mission in GTA IV. But no. We are able to choose 1 from 2 scripted scenarios. And that's all."

 

You did plan the heists. Also, I doubt they said "The heisst will be amazing like heist mission in GTA 4".

 

You were only able to choose between 2 scenarios, but you could pick who did everything. Who did you want as a hacker, who did you want as a driver, who did you want as a gunman, etc.

 

"Or map. Underwater is completely waste of space and time, it's extremaly boring, and submarine is too slow. And we even can't dive to ocean floor. Instead of this they should create more terrain behind Chilliad, or make chilliad bigger, and create snowy terrain on the top."

 

Underwater being a waste of space is your opinion, and it's fine for you to think that. Just like it's fine for me to think that underwater is awesome. Cruising under the ocean, exploring what it has to offer in the sub is fun to me. May not be fun to everyone. Completely understandable. And yes, you can dive to the ocean floor. You even do it during a mission.

 

"Also gun customization is big fail. Why we can't unmount silencer? Or turn off flashlight?"

 

I'm pretty sure you can unmount silencers at the gun shop (Not 100% though). And you can turn off the flashlight.

 

"Why the hell there's no nitro in Los Santos Customs?"

 

The lack of nitro was pretty saddening.

 

"Why the f*ck they created inventory in multiplayer, but no in singleplayer?"

 

Probably because multiplayer was a more appropriate place for it. I dunno, I haven't played much of multiplayer, so I don't really know what the inventory consists of. Can't comment much on that.

 

"Why we can't drive train?"

 

I'm pretty sure we could never drive trains. And they never promised that.

 

"Why they blocked almost every interior available in missions?"

 

Same reason they did the same thing in GTA 4.

 

"Why there are sh*tload of bugs, when they delayed it for fixing bugs?"

 

Because a closed, internal test isn't as good as millions of people playing it. Why are Bethesda games always buggy? This is pretty common sense.

 

"Why the hell they talked about V like about revolution in gaming while it's not even evolution?!

 

They said it was there biggest and most ambitious game to date. They talked about it like a revolution for them, not gaming.

 

"It's just GTA IV with better graphics, new story, map, weapons and cars."

 

...Everything a sequel usually is to the game before it. Lol what are you trying to say here?


mrkillasmurph1
  • mrkillasmurph1

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2013

#54

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:56 PM

97 on metacritic is just pathetic compared to sa's and vc's 94s and 95s. 1bn$ in 3 days is awful. Ask anyone and they'll totally agree the game sucked. I can't believe rockstar didn't live up to you and the article writer's expectations.

ShootPeopleNotDope
  • ShootPeopleNotDope

    Outside Agitator

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • None

#55

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:56 PM

100% agree. This game is just disappointing. They promised us a lot more. I know I'm repeating myself, but it's true. For example planning hest. They told us that we will be able to plan heists, and that heists will be amazing like heist mission in GTA IV. But no. We are able to choose 1 from 2 scripted scenarios. And that's all.

Or map. Underwater is completely waste of space and time, it's extremaly boring, and submarine is too slow. And we even can't dive to ocean floor. Instead of this they should create more terrain behind Chilliad, or make chilliad bigger, and create snowy terrain on the top.

Also gun customization is big fail. Why we can't unmount silencer? Or turn off flashlight?

Why the hell there's no nitro in Los Santos Customs?

Why the f*ck they created inventory in multiplayer, but no in singleplayer?

Why we can't drive train?

Why they blocked almost every interior available in missions?

Why there are sh*tload of bugs, when they delayed it for fixing bugs?

Why the hell they talked about V like about revolution in gaming while it's not even evolution?! It's just GTA IV with better graphics, new story, map, weapons and cars.

Very poorly for 5 years work.

 

EDIT: Also when we are talking about San Andreas 2, we are not talking about gangs and 3 cities. We are talking about GTA KING. About THE BEST GTA EVER. V should be SA2, but it's not.

I sincerely hope English is not your first language.


woggleman
  • woggleman

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012

#56

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:57 PM

 

Oh god, the stupidity in this thread...

 

"The people with brains know the game isn't that good while the fanboys are trying to believe the game is good while its the same formula we've seen for years. "

 

This statement right here is the stupidest in the thread. Congratulations redx.

Coming from someone who thought the 360 version would still look better with all the proof I shown makes whatever you post stupid. 

 

I think the PS3 version is better myself but given the history of how better are games are on the 360 up until this point you can very much understand why he would think that. RDR and IV looked and played better on the 360. R changed that with V.


drizzle1
  • drizzle1

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2013

#57

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:58 PM

 

 

 

It was clearly written by someone who adores San Andreas and anything that is not San Andreas just isn't good enough. At least, that's how I see it. 

 

@ spamtackey

 

But that is the real issue here. GTA V had a BIG chance to dethrone San Andreas once and for all. This should have been the GTA of them all to finally make those so-called 'SA fanboys' that certain people on here seem to despise, change their minds and acknowledge a new GTA king. The hard truth of the matter, is that from what I've seen and heard so far, that is definitely not the case. As bitter a pill as it may be for some to swallow, SA still appears to be better than V for many, and for very legitimate and valid reasons. Don't need to go into them all over again. 

 

 

 

100% agree. This game is just disappointing. They promised us a lot more. I know I'm repeating myself, but it's true. For example planning hest. They told us that we will be able to plan heists, and that heists will be amazing like heist mission in GTA IV. But no. We are able to choose 1 from 2 scripted scenarios. And that's all.

Or map. Underwater is completely waste of space and time, it's extremaly boring, and submarine is too slow. And we even can't dive to ocean floor. Instead of this they should create more terrain behind Chilliad, or make chilliad bigger, and create snowy terrain on the top.

Also gun customization is big fail. Why we can't unmount silencer? Or turn off flashlight?

Why the hell there's no nitro in Los Santos Customs?

Why the f*ck they created inventory in multiplayer, but no in singleplayer?

Why we can't drive train?

Why they blocked almost every interior available in missions?

Why they made army wanted level available only in missions?

Why there are sh*tload of bugs, when they delayed it for fixing bugs?

Why the hell they talked about V like about revolution in gaming while it's not even evolution?! It's just GTA IV with better graphics, new story, map, weapons and cars.

Very poorly for 5 years work.

 

EDIT: Also when we are talking about San Andreas 2, we are not talking about gangs and 3 cities. We are talking about GTA KING. About THE BEST GTA EVER. V should be SA2, but it's not.

Superb and realistic posts. Everything in these two posts hits the nail on the head.


Campion608
  • Campion608

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2013

#58

Posted 03 November 2013 - 08:01 PM

OP, you can turn the auto aim off. I'm not a big fan of V either, but I'm not naive. To get off topic for a second.

 

GTA V provides one of the best and most detailed game worlds ever created.

I encourage you to play a game called Morrowind.


woggleman
  • woggleman

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012

#59

Posted 03 November 2013 - 08:05 PM

 

 

 

 

It was clearly written by someone who adores San Andreas and anything that is not San Andreas just isn't good enough. At least, that's how I see it. 

 

@ spamtackey

 

But that is the real issue here. GTA V had a BIG chance to dethrone San Andreas once and for all. This should have been the GTA of them all to finally make those so-called 'SA fanboys' that certain people on here seem to despise, change their minds and acknowledge a new GTA king. The hard truth of the matter, is that from what I've seen and heard so far, that is definitely not the case. As bitter a pill as it may be for some to swallow, SA still appears to be better than V for many, and for very legitimate and valid reasons. Don't need to go into them all over again. 

 

 

I have yet to see any legitimate argument for why GTA V should have been SA 2.0 to please those fanboys. The most I hear is "gang wars, burglaries, three cities, CJ!!" and it's starting to get on my nerves. 

 

EXactly. They were not trying to make it and even if they did it would never please them. They are like people caught up on their first love and nobody will ever match up.


spamtackey
  • spamtackey

    Business Socks

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013

#60

Posted 03 November 2013 - 08:07 PM

OP, you can turn the auto aim off. I'm not a big fan of V either, but I'm not naive. To get off topic for a second.

 

GTA V provides one of the best and most detailed game worlds ever created.

I encourage you to play a game called Morrowind.

 

I encourage you play Sleeping Dogs. It's quite fun.

 

What does Marrowind having a great game world have to do with GTA V also having a great game world? I said "one of the best", which implies heavily that there are other great game worlds out there. 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users