Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Where do you see the Grand Theft Auto *SERIES* going?

22 replies to this topic
armyraidfail404
  • armyraidfail404

    I don't have any bananas!

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2013
  • Australia

#1

Posted 02 March 2014 - 01:44 AM

After playing the games and reading the reviews on Gamespot, I found a gradual change in the orientation of Grand Theft Auto.

The 2D Universe drew heavily upon it's gameplay; that is a simple fact. But I also found much more difference that I never thought to acess myself. Gamespot has given Grand Theft Auto a score of 8/10. Considering it's innovative gameplay and how it indirectly dictates what you should be doing, IE, senseless killing, as pointed out in it's point scoring system which provides points for killing people, jacking cars and violating multiple arson laws. This is what I got most from GTA 1.

In GTA 5, this is not the case. Gamespot has given the game a 9/10 for it's incredible story features, and it's ability to copy those features into it's gameplay. What I find negative about this is that the gameplay now seems pointless as there is no real reward for going on a random killing spree. Maybe a few achievements and trophies there and then but no actual unlock comes from it, only the fact that you are ruthlessly killing innocent people for no reason.

There are multiple views that I'm taking on the GTA series and where it seems to be heading. If it was my choice I would refocus the game on it's gameplay and it's world, instead of a dark story filled with hipocrisy and sexism. These are probably the main reasons why GTA has received a higher rating in the first place [PEGI and ESRB alike].

But with those higher ratings, dark stories, sexism...AND ROCK N ROLL [Que Tumbleweed and Crickets], comes Gamespot degrading us gamers as people who like those things. The only way it promotes us is not by being turned into animals but abiding by a criminal plan [IE Heists].

If you were to save Grand Theft Auto, where would you make it go?

DISCRETION ADVISED

CAUTION: SPOLIERS MAY BE CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FORUM

JUDGEMENT IS INEVITABLE, WHETHER IT BE COMPLIMENTARY OR NEGATIVE. BE MATURE ABOUT PEOPLE QUESTIONING YOUR OPINIONS FOR THEY ARE JUST ATTEMPTING TO CONFIRM YOUR THEORIES AND ADAPT THEM TO REALITY.

ARTICLE 1 - YE BE JUDGED, AND THEE BE JUDGED
ARTICLE 2 - DISCRIMINATION LEADS TO INSANITY
ARTICLE 3 - SOMETIMES THEE SIMPLE MINDS LEAD TO THEE HIGHEST OF REGARDS [Trolls, they are allowed if they don't troll too much]
ARTICLE 4 - A PICTURE PAINTS A THOUSAND WORDS, BUT A TEXT IS EASIER TO UNDERSTAND
ARTICLE 5 - DRUNK POSTS BE FUNNY AND ARE WELCOME AT ALL TIMES, YET MUST BE CONFIRMED AS A DRUNK POST
ARTICLE 6 - REVEAL YOUR INFORMATION, YET TAKE CAUTION FOR OTHERS CURIOSITY

I would take Grand Theft Auto to it's world and implementing that into a high dependency of gameplay. Heaps of Radio Stations and Songs. Lots o' Vehicles and hilarious dialogue. Grocery Shopping, Hunger Thirst sh*t Needs And Insanity, everyday something to spend your dough on.

Rainbow Party
  • Rainbow Party

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2013

#2

Posted 02 March 2014 - 01:47 AM

unfortnately I think it's gonna become more multiplayer oriented :c

  • theGTAking101 and matajuegos01 like this

armyraidfail404
  • armyraidfail404

    I don't have any bananas!

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2013
  • Australia

#3

Posted 02 March 2014 - 01:55 AM

And would you fix it in anyway?

Maybe make Online gaming much more enjoyable? I think that if Grand Theft Auto did to completely online, it would have to become an MMO. Just a thought...it's possible. There would be more money coming out of it because it would be a monthly payment and all, and there's no way that GTA will become free to play.

Rainbow Party
  • Rainbow Party

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2013

#4

Posted 02 March 2014 - 03:20 AM

Yeah I mean I haven't played GTA V but judging from what people say, it's clear that they worked harder on the online aspect. I'd really really hate it if they went to focus mostly on the online component. I really like GTA for being a single player experience. I personally dont enjoy multiplayer games at all because I really hate interacting with that kind of people. I mean strangers on online games are usually rude and even with friends I don't find it that fun because I don't like the anxiety of a competitive online game where you can't even see the other players. I like local multiplayer but that's different. And yeah, people these days are sure that the future of gaming is multiplayer so it's very possible that GTA makes a title that focuses almost purely on the online component and has something like a paid subscription like you said. GTA is so massively famous that it would probably work fine for them, they just need to work on whatever people didn't like about GTA: O.

But for me personally they should just focus 99% on the single player game and then add some small multiplayer games for casual players who just want online fun for a few minutes. Nothing massive, no need for character customization or a story online, just pick a character like Niko, Tommy, Candy Suxxx, whatever and play deathmatch or catpure the flag or stuff like that.


BLOOD-MOND
  • BLOOD-MOND

    aka: Blood-Is-in-Diamond or BiiD

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2013
  • None

#5

Posted 02 March 2014 - 03:39 AM Edited by Blood-Is-in-Diamond, 02 March 2014 - 04:06 AM.

Yeah OP i also read the reviews of GTA (1997) yesterday and i was shocked how critics were praising a 2D Openworld Game with the exception of IGN but GTA2 (1999) was seen as a great sequel and a game that brought alot of things to the Genre,i.e.Multiplayer,Peds started becoming smarter,Respect it even did the futuristic setting before any Openworld "GTA Clone" Games
Fast forward 13 years after GTA 3,and 17 years since GTA started,I think GTA 5 brought alot of things to table,and no Rockstar didnt focus too much on GTAO but yeah GTAO would always evolve and be an mmo to GTA.

Edit:But GTA (1997) and GTA2 (1999) were both Underrated games and also with the Revolution GTA3 was to the Gaming Industry and the OW/Sandbox Genre.

HaythamKenway
  • HaythamKenway

    The Man Who Sold the World

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2012
  • Czech-Republic

#6

Posted 02 March 2014 - 08:38 AM Edited by SFPD officer, 02 March 2014 - 08:39 AM.

You sound like you want Saints Row. And I don't mean that as an insult, I love SR and it's one of my favorite franchises.

 

However, I feel like R*, even though I complain about V a lot, finally managed to balance story and gameplay in it. So they should keep doing what they are doing. If R* go one way, they'll have another Mafia. If the other, they'll have another Saints Row. I'd keep it the way it is.

 

But, for the future, I'm also afraid Online will become the number one thing for them. I'm sure they'll want to keep telling stories too, but in what form? Will they put the same focus and dedication to them as to IV's, RDR's or MP3's singleplayer? Or will they just be a cool cherries on top of what will really be Online's expansion packs? Or will they, eventually, send singleplayer down the drain altogether and make up some narrative in Online?

 

Singleplayer has been the staple of the franchise. III, Vice City and San Andreas offered hundreds of hours of fun, either without any multiplayer or just limited co-op mode. In LCS, VCS, IV, multiplayer complimented SP perfectly and didn't steal any spotlight from it. But in V, many Online's features didn't even make it to SP.

 

The best possible solution I see to this is just let R* North make singleplayer games only and let some other studio focus on Online as a standalone project.

  • TheDeaconBosco likes this

BLOOD-MOND
  • BLOOD-MOND

    aka: Blood-Is-in-Diamond or BiiD

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2013
  • None

#7

Posted 02 March 2014 - 09:34 AM Edited by Blood-Is-in-Diamond, 02 March 2014 - 09:35 AM.

@SFPD
Lol become Saint Row? No way,Saint Row didnt even exist when there was SA or Liberty City Stories.Same was Mafia,it didnt exist when GTA evolved into 3D with GTA3 and that almost 13 years ago (circa.2001).But yeah i do agree with you,That the Primary Devs (creators) of this Legendary Franchise,Rockstar North should focus on SP,but seeing that Rockstar Games want to turn GTA Online into an Online Franchise to GTA,that is feasible afterall they got other studios,and btw Rockstar Games (North) said they have 45 years of ideas for GTA,so Story and SP would still be GTA's Fundamentals.

armyraidfail404
  • armyraidfail404

    I don't have any bananas!

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2013
  • Australia

#8

Posted 02 March 2014 - 10:35 AM

Are you really sure that Rockstar North is going to put 45 years worth of ideas into Single Player when GTA V used up 3 years of ideas worth of Online modes? Come on...

Besides that this is slowly becoming an actual discussion full of bright minds and whatnot, the question was "What would you do to 'save' the GTA franchise?" And only SFPD Officer has answered it. Blood-Is-In-Diamond...what do you want out of GTA? If you were the lead designer of GTA, what would you put in it and take out to make it meet 'True GTA' standards?

BLOOD-MOND
  • BLOOD-MOND

    aka: Blood-Is-in-Diamond or BiiD

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2013
  • None

#9

Posted 02 March 2014 - 11:21 AM Edited by Blood-Is-in-Diamond, 02 March 2014 - 11:21 AM.

Are you really sure that Rockstar North is going to put 45 years worth of ideas into Single Player when GTA V used up 3 years of ideas worth of Online modes? Come on...

Besides that this is slowly becoming an actual discussion full of bright minds and whatnot, the question was "What would you do to 'save' the GTA franchise?" And only SFPD Officer has answered it. Blood-Is-In-Diamond...what do you want out of GTA? If you were the lead designer of GTA, what would you put in it and take out to make it meet 'True GTA' standards?

hmm that a great question,but Lol i would still make it feel like the 15 GTA games before it and i would also innovate it gameplay mechanics and features (GTA 5 did that) but seeing multiplayer have been part of GTA since 2D Era (1 and 2) then also HD Era i would also keep the multiplayer,GTAO is a welcoming mmo to the gaming community,you either like it or hate it.I am sure part ofthe 45 years ideas would also be for GTAO.but GTA would always be a Storied Franchise in heart and soul even though some people think GTAO was the focus during V's 5 years development cycle.

na89340qv0n34b09q340
  • na89340qv0n34b09q340

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2010
  • Saint-Martin

#10

Posted 02 March 2014 - 12:31 PM Edited by Joe Chip, 02 March 2014 - 12:32 PM.

Honestly, I don't see online play becoming that big a thing, at least not enough to overshadow single-player development. Multiplayer server activity dies, and I'm sure Rockstar knows that *cough* gta iv *cough*. 
 
I think the games are going to get more and more realistic, at least with character situations and how the world works. Like GTA IV without the moody atmosphere. I also think that the satire is going to gradually thin out; commercials are going to look more and more like real life commercials, and that's because our culture in real life is headed that way. (But also because Lazlow's getting stale. ;) )
 
Lots of things are needed to get the franchise going in the right direction. I'll list what I think is most important.

  • I'd probably stop trying to integrate all the neat new features we have in the next game into the story. Side missions are side missions. If someone wants to explore the internet or TV let them do it on their own time.
  • The phone is only used to access missions. Side missions should never call you and if they do there should never be a penalty for not answering. That just ties you down with more obligations in the game.
  • Allow the environment to become more destructible, because it feels good to rip things apart. Also continue adding weapons that support this.
  • Add in a plethora of cheat codes. Ones that make you invincible, ones that'll let you fly, ones that make your vehicle indestructible, ones that turn all the pedestrians into pirates and all the cars into boat cars, etc.
  • Add in more subtle mythos, like the Mt. Chilliad mystery that people are investigating in the GTA V sub-forum, and like what bigfoot was supposed to be in GTA: San Andreas. They don't have to have rewards at the end, just connections for people to investigate and think about.
  • armyraidfail404 likes this

BLOOD-MOND
  • BLOOD-MOND

    aka: Blood-Is-in-Diamond or BiiD

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2013
  • None

#11

Posted 02 March 2014 - 01:38 PM Edited by Blood-Is-in-Diamond, 02 March 2014 - 01:39 PM.

@Joe Chip
Great comment bro,but i disagree with you on the;
"TV" "Internet" and "Phone" part,the HD Era GTAs introduced and advanced those 3 features in Video Games and the Openworld/Sandbox Genre,you now see games like Sleeping Dogs,Watchdogs,Mafia 3 (?) implementing (copying) it.anyways i wouldnt start with "GTA Clone" blah blah blah today,but GTA 4 and GTA 5 made these 3 features become an immensed experience i.e.Watching The Mens Room or Underbelly of Paradise,Calling a friend to hang out or buying things Online or reading In-game news.Tbh i cant see these features ever be removed even if a next-gen GTA is set in the 70s i am sure they will make Cell Phones and Newspaper so interactive.And i also think the cheat codes are great in IV and V (esp.the latter) Lol a flying cheat would fit Saints Row and btw that franchise need alot of help cus it died after the 2nd game,and it doesnt even have the ability to watch TV,use phone in Real Time or browse the Internet.

Rainbow Party
  • Rainbow Party

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2013

#12

Posted 02 March 2014 - 02:02 PM

Edit:But GTA (1997) and GTA2 (1999) were both Underrated games and also with the Revolution GTA3 was to the Gaming Industry and the OW/Sandbox Genre.

GTA 1 and 2 were sh*t :p


BLOOD-MOND
  • BLOOD-MOND

    aka: Blood-Is-in-Diamond or BiiD

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2013
  • None

#13

Posted 02 March 2014 - 02:59 PM Edited by Blood-Is-in-Diamond, 02 March 2014 - 03:02 PM.


Edit:But GTA (1997) and GTA2 (1999) were both Underrated games and also with the Revolution GTA3 was to the Gaming Industry and the OW/Sandbox Genre.

GTA 1 and 2 were sh*t :p
Lol but there was no game like them then,were you carjack,kill people and free roam then,that why GTA (1997) and GTA2 (1999) were seen as the stepping stone (Foundations) of the OW/Sandbox Genre,before the Birth of GTA3 which changed everything,so how were they sh*t? cus did only thing they didnt have was 3D graphics i myself would love to play both to see the Roots of this Legendary Franchise.

B Dawg
  • B Dawg

    Before the devs started taking our awesome cars away!

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2008
  • Bosnia-and-Herzegovina

#14

Posted 02 March 2014 - 03:15 PM

Slowly going to sh*t, losing its unique feeling, taking overrated features from other games, dumbing down gameplay, multiplayer oriented.

  • Blennerville likes this

Rainbow Party
  • Rainbow Party

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2013

#15

Posted 02 March 2014 - 03:22 PM Edited by Rainbow Party, 02 March 2014 - 03:25 PM.

 

Lol but there was no game like them then,were you carjack,kill people and free roam then,that why GTA (1997) and GTA2 (1999) were seen as the stepping stone (Foundations) of the OW/Sandbox Genre,before the Birth of GTA3 which changed everything,so how were they sh*t? cus did only thing they didnt have was 3D graphics i myself would love to play both to see the Roots of this Legendary Franchise.

 

It wasn't just that they had 2D gameplay that made them bad (actually the city was 3D but the cars and peds were 2D), because GTA for Gameboy Advance was fun and well designed and it still played from a 2D top down view. But in GTA 1 and 2 the gameplay is confusing and very poorly designed. In the first GTA you have to get tons of money just to be able to pass to the next city and save the game. In GTA 2 you have to get also tons of money just to save the game and since there's no map you have to rely on randomly spawning vans with radars to guide you to your saving spot. And the layout of the cities was really bad, too confusing to navigate. Yeah you can jack cars and kill people but even by 90s standards I think it was pretty bad. Besides both of them got average ratings from many reviewers as far as I know. Those games were too hard and complex for their own good.

If GTA 3 had 2D gameplay it would have been awesome anyway because the gameplay was perfectly designed: You have a safehouse to save at any time, the map has clear landmarks and is easy to navigate, the mission locations are easy to find, etc. So GTA 3 lets you decide wether to just pass time or to focus on missions at any time since you can easily move through the city and save at any time. GTA for GB Advance had the same gameplay but with a top down view and it was still great fun because it kept GTA 3's flawless concepts of gameplay.

In GTA 1 and 2 you are basically just out there with no clue of what you have to do. Also the way the camera zooms in and out when you are in a car makes me want to throw up. Well that's just my opinion, I guess some people liked those games.

 

Whoa I need to learn how to write shorter parragraphs :p


BLOOD-MOND
  • BLOOD-MOND

    aka: Blood-Is-in-Diamond or BiiD

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2013
  • None

#16

Posted 02 March 2014 - 04:58 PM Edited by Blood-Is-in-Diamond, 02 March 2014 - 05:03 PM.


 Lol but there was no game like them then,were you carjack,kill people and free roam then,that why GTA (1997) and GTA2 (1999) were seen as the stepping stone (Foundations) of the OW/Sandbox Genre,before the Birth of GTA3 which changed everything,so how were they sh*t? cus did only thing they didnt have was 3D graphics i myself would love to play both to see the Roots of this Legendary Franchise.
 

It wasn't just that they had 2D gameplay that made them bad (actually the city was 3D but the cars and peds were 2D), because GTA for Gameboy Advance was fun and well designed and it still played from a 2D top down view. But in GTA 1 and 2 the gameplay is confusing and very poorly designed. In the first GTA you have to get tons of money just to be able to pass to the next city and save the game. In GTA 2 you have to get also tons of money just to save the game and since there's no map you have to rely on randomly spawning vans with radars to guide you to your saving spot. And the layout of the cities was really bad, too confusing to navigate. Yeah you can jack cars and kill people but even by 90s standards I think it was pretty bad. Besides both of them got average ratings from many reviewers as far as I know. Those games were too hard and complex for their own good.
If GTA 3 had 2D gameplay it would have been awesome anyway because the gameplay was perfectly designed: You have a safehouse to save at any time, the map has clear landmarks and is easy to navigate, the mission locations are easy to find, etc. So GTA 3 lets you decide wether to just pass time or to focus on missions at any time since you can easily move through the city and save at any time. GTA for GB Advance had the same gameplay but with a top down view and it was still great fun because it kept GTA 3's flawless concepts of gameplay.
In GTA 1 and 2 you are basically just out there with no clue of what you have to do. Also the way the camera zooms in and out when you are in a car makes me want to throw up. Well that's just my opinion, I guess some people liked those games.
 
Whoa I need to learn how to write shorter parragraphs :p
But a map comes with any copy of GTA (1997),GTA London 1969 (1999) and GTA2 (1999) just like Modern day GTAs (3D and HD Era) according to GTA collection videos on youtube and also on GTA Wiki.Yeah they had 2D graphics,but;
*Openworld
*You can carjack and kill Peds
*They had Pay n Spray shops (Max Paynt in GTA2)
*According to reviewers,if GTA2 have had 3D graphics it could have done what III did two years later (circa.2001),Peds started getting smart from there on.
*They both had Multiplayer (a first for the Genre).even GTA Advanced didnt have that,Plus it graphics werent like the aforementioned Legendary Predecessors.
*They had some form of communications (Pager,Public Phone) etc.

That why GTA3 was seen as a Revolution and a game changer to the OW/Sandbox Genre cus it took the foundations and fundamentals of GTA and GTA2 into a 3D living world with many things to do.

Rainbow Party
  • Rainbow Party

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2013

#17

Posted 02 March 2014 - 06:50 PM Edited by Rainbow Party, 02 March 2014 - 06:52 PM.

Well yeah you are right about many things and I do respect the first 2 GTAs for being revolutionary in the genre and for starting the series that then turned awesome in GTA 3. But I still think GTA 1 and 2 had the crappiest graphics and gameplay.

Maybe that game Body Harvest for N64 (which was also made by DMA) should be considered the spiritual prequel to GTA 3 instead of GTA 1 and 2.


armyraidfail404
  • armyraidfail404

    I don't have any bananas!

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2013
  • Australia

#18

Posted 03 March 2014 - 05:56 AM

GTA 1 and 2 I never played before. But I hear good things about it. And I agree with the reviews that I read.

Sure a mini-map wasn't included, all the more to make the game harder.
Sure the camera zooms in and out, all the more reasons to see where you are going.
Sure the graphics aren't any good, all the more to state that it's from the damn 90's.
Sure you can't save the game until you get to another island, all the more reason to play the game more.

It's all how you think about it. If you don't think that it's any good you go write a review for it and see just how much praise you get for running down the other way that the mainstream is running.

Article 1 - Ye Be Judged, And Thee Be Judged
  • B Dawg likes this

Rainbow Party
  • Rainbow Party

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2013

#19

Posted 03 March 2014 - 01:41 PM Edited by Rainbow Party, 03 March 2014 - 01:48 PM.

Hey, I don't care if people don't agree with me, I just think those games (that you haven't even played) sucked.

Chill.

Sorry for not worshipping every GTA... (sarcasm).


armyraidfail404
  • armyraidfail404

    I don't have any bananas!

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2013
  • Australia

#20

Posted 04 March 2014 - 05:26 AM

I respect opinions, even if I don't like them, I leave them be.

As I will with you.

Mikeol1987
  • Mikeol1987

    Last Gen Blues

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2003
  • United-Kingdom

#21

Posted 05 March 2014 - 11:29 PM

Well for GTA6: ive been blowing this trumpet all day but I feel reinvested in the idea since readin the forum, a new city: carcer city
I would bring back voice and mocap actors from III to try and recapture some of the magic of the 3 era, but to some extent keep how far weve come in the series in terms of graphics and gameplay.

I would do away with the horribly boring point a to b missions that take a good chunk of gta mission styles (drive from here and deliver) and replace them with more things I was glad to see in V: assassination missions, heists etc. I would add semi scripted car chases to take you through interiors within the city (blues brothers rampaging the mall style) and I would bring back a more mafia focus... upper class crime that gets grittier the further you play. Assassination missions in my gta would be dark and disturbing, and have to be planned like heists, done in a certain way to satisfy your bosses. (Iceman style contracts) so not all missions can be completed just by mowing down someone but you may have to movr the bodie in your trunk to a new location or such and such.

As my main character gets further into his line of work he gets more paranoid and starts to become the hunted. He becomes an informant and after 15 years in prison moves to a new city (two hugely fleshed out cities in two different eras)

The second half of the game would start similar to michael, our character is in witness protection out of prison... but his old crew get wind of the guy and start to come after him for ratting on the bosses. Your character and the player have to remember the old tricks he performed as a hitman, to outsmart the traps set all over the city by his former team mates hunting him down.
your character now moonlights as a taxi driver in this new city (before sh*t really hits the fan) bringing back a mini game you can do at anytime.
The character is found eventually and the savage missions begin wherein the character has no choice but to start killing again, to survive.

The two cities would be the same size as gtav map but with little to no wasted space on countryside. Instead, the two cities would be connected by this area of countryside the same size as gtavs map again, so all in all it would be 3x the size of GTAV. All of this entire map would of course be classically surrounded by water but would be so extensive if you were in the middle of the map you couldn't see any map edge.

there would be the same great amount of vehicles as we have come to expect. There would also be wing suits as a main feature instead of something like Yoga... haha.

Your character would be able to meet one of 3 women (yes bringing back the gf feature to an extent) but this would be much deeper than just picking them up and going on dates. They would all have cutscenes acted and mocapped you would only see if you chose that specific person, and would become an integral part of the story towards the end.
1 from each city
1 from middle countryside
each choice has its advantage such as the countryside girl representative of catalina style girl who is much more useful in thr final battles because she gets involved
Or the 1 girl from the city with the rich daddy that helps bolster your bank account whenever you need it, and gives the ability to pay off some of the small time hitmen that come looking early in the second half.
all 3 become a choice of penpal whilst our character is in prison and drastically effect the outcome of the finale, as this is the first gta character that (in the second half) is fighting for his life and wife rather than just the pursuit of money. Ive got more ideas ill edit if I get more. Maybe this needs a concept thread I dunno. Lemme know if you like sounds of it and I will get creative. :)

armyraidfail404
  • armyraidfail404

    I don't have any bananas!

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2013
  • Australia

#22

Posted 08 March 2014 - 08:25 AM

That's pretty good, but the story is too generic in my opinion. If I am to give another view, that would be greatly appreciated.

The protaginist[s] are performing a heist where their main enemy was a criminal mastermind. At the same time a Private Millitary or Government has plotted an assassination against the criminal mastermind that the protaginist[s] are stealing from. The secondary antagonists (Private Millitary or Government)
ends up being scattered by the mistaken protaginist[s] and the main antagonist (Criminal Mastermind) escapes with his valuables.

In an public uproar against a black ops operation, the secondary antagonists publicise that the protagonist[s] are to blame for the failure. In the meantime, many could be respected NPCs die, causing the criminal team to split.

5 Years later, the secondary antagonists are still chasing the main antagonist and mysteriously enlist the help of the protagonist in finding the main antagonist. The team bands together again and eventually it is revealed that one of the team had struck the deal with the secondary antagonist (Ie the third antagonist).

The protagonist attempts to kill the tertiary antagonist and is arrested by the secondary antagonists. Eventually the protagonist is released on parole and starts a new life in a second city: Girlfriends, new job etc. The protagonist is contacted by the main antagonist in blackmail attempts to force him to become his "errand boy" otherwise his life will be revealed to the secondary antagonists and tertiary antagonist.

The protagonist turns the tides however and return help to the secondary antagonists to apprehend the main antagonist. The tertiary antagonist however learns of the protagonist's prescence and attempts to destroy his personal life by revealing them of his criminal status. The protagonist performs multiple heists for the secondary antagonists in order to kill the tertiary antagonist. The protagonist's life is ruined either ways and seeks revenge on the secondary antagonist for both his old life and his new life.

He sucessfully justifies the political truth of the black operation and disbands the secondary antagonists. The main antagonist escapes and...


Yeah, I lost myself can you please help me out with this, I went blank and all. I need ideas people!

Blennerville
  • Blennerville

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2014
  • Ireland

#23

Posted 08 March 2014 - 02:04 PM

Down hill. I dont buy that they have lots of ideas left (ones that they would actually act on anyways).





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users