Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

If it were up to YOU, which game would you have Rockstar remake?

56 replies to this topic
Daz
  • Daz

    Pirandello/Kruger

  • Feroci Racing
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2001
  • None

#31

Posted 05 March 2014 - 03:04 PM Edited by Daz, 05 March 2014 - 03:06 PM.

How are the hardcore gamers penalized? Because there's an option for the game to help you? You basically have no reason to complain about it. You can have free-aim, use it. It's simple. Also, the PC version solves the cutscene trouble. IIRC, on PC, on your first playthrough, you cannot skip cutscenes. But on future playthrough's, it's possible to skip them.

 

Without explaining whole auto aim entirely ruins a game, I will put it this way. The games are designed with auto aim targeting in mind, so factors like enemy difficulty, enemy placement and speed in completing certain tasks are made overly difficult or awkward attempting to use manual aim. For example in GTAIV, you simply can't just run and shoot on the move whenever you want, or know exactly where the crosshair is at all times. Because the game is deisgned to be an auto aim experience. It is not so much about it being harder or not, it is just the game doesn't play the way it is intended.

 

PC is always a good fix for issues in games that hold it's true potential back. But there sadly is no RDR on PC and IV on PC is so poorly optimizied it is almost unplayable. The cutscenes still exist in the arcade mode, I barely remember it at this point but I am pretty sure the cutscenes mask the loading times so you still have to wait 2-3 minutes each time before you have an option to skip. As well as the fact that animations and situational cutscenes are not skippable.

 

I hate using the term hardcore gamer, because I don't consider myself one, but I am 100% not a casual gamer, just based off the amount of time I play each game and the attention to every detail I notice about them. Issues I have with games no doubt the vast majority of people never even notice, just based off the sheer amount of time I spend on them. That is why things become annoying very fast and become easily evident to me having to skin an animal so many times and being forced to see an animation instead of just being able to skip it.

 

I just feel that there is never a way to tell if a game is truely a purist game with only the bare bones of the game with everything exactly in the game for a reason with no extra frills thrown on top.


B Dawg
  • B Dawg

    What exactly are we doing?

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

#32

Posted 05 March 2014 - 03:25 PM

For example in GTAIV, you simply can't just run and shoot on the move whenever you want, or know exactly where the crosshair is at all times. Because the game is deisgned to be an auto aim experience. It is not so much about it being harder or not, it is just the game doesn't play the way it is intended.

 

PC is always a good fix for issues in games that hold it's true potential back.

If you compare IV to V, IV is definitely made for free-aim. I'm not sure what you mean by 'cant run and shoot on the move or know where the crosshair is'. You can hold A/X while you aim to increase your speed (which is unnecessary in IV:MP). Besides, IV is easier compared to past GTAs when it comes to missions, so there is really no reason to have the game aim for you.

 

R* screwed up the PC version of GTA IV with weapons not having any bulletspread while using a mouse, which is almost as bad as auto-aim, but they have bulletspread when you use a joystick (I prefer playing IV with the 360 controller anyway)


Th3MaN1
  • Th3MaN1

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2011
  • Romania

#33

Posted 05 March 2014 - 03:39 PM

 

How are the hardcore gamers penalized? Because there's an option for the game to help you? You basically have no reason to complain about it. You can have free-aim, use it. It's simple. Also, the PC version solves the cutscene trouble. IIRC, on PC, on your first playthrough, you cannot skip cutscenes. But on future playthrough's, it's possible to skip them.

 

Without explaining whole auto aim entirely ruins a game, I will put it this way. The games are designed with auto aim targeting in mind, so factors like enemy difficulty, enemy placement and speed in completing certain tasks are made overly difficult or awkward attempting to use manual aim. For example in GTAIV, you simply can't just run and shoot on the move whenever you want, or know exactly where the crosshair is at all times. Because the game is deisgned to be an auto aim experience. It is not so much about it being harder or not, it is just the game doesn't play the way it is intended.

 

PC is always a good fix for issues in games that hold it's true potential back. But there sadly is no RDR on PC and IV on PC is so poorly optimizied it is almost unplayable. The cutscenes still exist in the arcade mode, I barely remember it at this point but I am pretty sure the cutscenes mask the loading times so you still have to wait 2-3 minutes each time before you have an option to skip. As well as the fact that animations and situational cutscenes are not skippable.

 

I hate using the term hardcore gamer, because I don't consider myself one, but I am 100% not a casual gamer, just based off the amount of time I play each game and the attention to every detail I notice about them. Issues I have with games no doubt the vast majority of people never even notice, just based off the sheer amount of time I spend on them. That is why things become annoying very fast and become easily evident to me having to skin an animal so many times and being forced to see an animation instead of just being able to skip it.

 

I just feel that there is never a way to tell if a game is truely a purist game with only the bare bones of the game with everything exactly in the game for a reason with no extra frills thrown on top.

 

Considering R* games are almost always sure-hits when it comes to sales, people will not appreciate when a game is too difficult, and if GTA V would have been a difficult game, I'm not sure it could have reached the level of sales it did today. Of course, the drop of sales wouldn't have been significant, but then again, for games devs, it's all about the money. Also, GTA was never known as a challenging game. Sure, a few frustating and/or difficult missions here and there, but overall, the game was never difficult to play. But then, look at Max Payne 3. Even on PC, playing on hardcore mode will prove challenging. I do agree with gunfights in IV and V being a joke, and even with auto-aim off, it does feel like those games were designed for auto-aim usage. But free aim does give challenge.


Daz
  • Daz

    Pirandello/Kruger

  • Feroci Racing
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2001
  • None

#34

Posted 05 March 2014 - 04:47 PM

 

For example in GTAIV, you simply can't just run and shoot on the move whenever you want, or know exactly where the crosshair is at all times. Because the game is deisgned to be an auto aim experience. It is not so much about it being harder or not, it is just the game doesn't play the way it is intended.

 

PC is always a good fix for issues in games that hold it's true potential back.

If you compare IV to V, IV is definitely made for free-aim. I'm not sure what you mean by 'cant run and shoot on the move or know where the crosshair is'. You can hold A/X while you aim to increase your speed (which is unnecessary in IV:MP). Besides, IV is easier compared to past GTAs when it comes to missions, so there is really no reason to have the game aim for you.

 

R* screwed up the PC version of GTA IV with weapons not having any bulletspread while using a mouse, which is almost as bad as auto-aim, but they have bulletspread when you use a joystick (I prefer playing IV with the 360 controller anyway)

 

The speed you get from holding down A/X should be like that all the time. Also I don't know about you but I only have one thumb on my right hand, so holding down A/X and using the analog stick to aim is completely impossible to do.

 

What I mean you can't see the crosshair, is for example Saint's Row, the crosshair is always on screen and any moment you hit the RT button it will fire with no delay. You can't judge aiming without seeing the crosshair at all times even if you can quick fire like that.

 

Considering R* games are almost always sure-hits when it comes to sales, people will not appreciate when a game is too difficult, and if GTA V would have been a difficult game, I'm not sure it could have reached the level of sales it did today. Of course, the drop of sales wouldn't have been significant, but then again, for games devs, it's all about the money. Also, GTA was never known as a challenging game. Sure, a few frustating and/or difficult missions here and there, but overall, the game was never difficult to play. But then, look at Max Payne 3. Even on PC, playing on hardcore mode will prove challenging. I do agree with gunfights in IV and V being a joke, and even with auto-aim off, it does feel like those games were designed for auto-aim usage. But free aim does give challenge.
 

 

The game stumbles over itself more than it needs to. The game wouldn't be hard with free aim only if it had the right mechanics to back it up. Casual players can play Call of Duty, Halo and Gears of War pretty easily and none of those have lock on.

 

I am actually not against having snap-to-aim targeting, like what cod and similar games have. I just really dislike the game locking onto an enemy and not breaking lock if they move or even if I try to yank the crosshair in another direction. I feel it dumbs down the playerbase by catering to people who can't use controllers for precise aiming.

 

I don't want manual aim in order to make the game challenging, I just require it for easy and fun fast paced shooting that is precice and quick. I could no doubt defend myself against the onslaught of GTAIV shotgun cops with terminator accuracy and range if I just have smoother movement, precise aiming with a dedicated crosshair and being able to move at least as fast as you do holding down the A/X buttons by default.

 

It also baffles me why you are always forced to walk instead of run in IV, V and RDR. It makes no sense to me, it is as if people don't know how to move an analog stick forward slightly.

 

All these issues were solved over a decade ago, games have had much smoother and easier gameplay because of it, you don't require PC style mouse dead aim tactics, just a more straight forward design with the controls which Rockstar still refuses to get up to date with.

 

All I ever wanted was movement and aiming from Max Payne 1 & 2, and even 3 (as the shooting mechanics was actually decent unlike the rest of it) in a GTA game.

  • Forty, B Dawg and Th3MaN1 like this

Th3MaN1
  • Th3MaN1

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2011
  • Romania

#35

Posted 05 March 2014 - 05:23 PM

Okay, now I understand what you want in GTA, and I actually completely agree. The shooting from Max Payne 3 (I personally think Max Payne 3 is the best TPS the 360/PS3 and PC ever saw) certainly didn't make it into GTA V. From the small details, such as the way Franklin/Michael/Trevor pop up from cover, they reveal their entire body. I could understand this if their shooting skill was low, but even Michael does the same stupid thing. In Max Payne 3, I f*cking loved the animations, from the reloading, to Max popping up from cover, to holding a two-handed weapon in his left hand while using a smaller one with the right hand, and I could go on. I never saw this level of detail in any game when it came to the gunplay. On the console versions, the game was almost impossible to beat run&gun style, on PC it's possible, in fact it's quite easy.

 

But I'll still say this; GTA never was good when it came to shooting. Maybe average at best. I felt that the gunplay with III/VC on PC has the stupidest gunplay mechanics, making all the gunfights a point&click game, and I consider GTA III the best game ever made. In SA, this was somewhat solved, but on consoles, it still felt like the only buttons you used in gunfights were aim and shoot, nothing else. I could understand this with III/VC, since those games were quite simple, but I was rather surprised when the basics of SA's gun mechanics were used in IV. Sure, there was cover system, and the zoom in when you aimed with weapons, which I liked. But it was still the same stupid sh*t; press two buttons, and you're done. I think V improved on the overall shooting mechanics, but it's still not there.

 

But then again, I've never considered this a problem, since I didn't really care. But I see where you're coming from, and I couldn't agree with you any more. Let's hope GTA VI won't be a victim of the same faults, as V had quite a lot of shooting, and that is what made me realize that the shooting didn't improve as much as I thought it would.

  • Daz likes this

Daz
  • Daz

    Pirandello/Kruger

  • Feroci Racing
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2001
  • None

#36

Posted 05 March 2014 - 05:52 PM

Of course. V was a huge improvement on the shooting, but it still lacks quite a lot and leaves things to be desired.

 

I wouldn't get your hopes up for change. We had Max Payne 3 and I agree all the shooting mechanics, reload animations even down to how he put the very tip of his finger on the trigger on a Taurus PT92 (the trigger pull is quite long so you do need a fingertip sometimes) was f*cking outstanding, it was just the rest of the game that let it down in my opinion. I wanted a co-op mode, I wanted a Noir setting like the first two. I didn't like the choices they took with the character, such as his appearance and washed up old bum attitude. But the majority of my dislike for it was the plot, the amount of cutscenes that are unskippable and no real choice in the weapons you brought into levels, some that would end up with no ammo instantly and be useless the rest of the game like the desert eagle. It felt so nice, yet they don't let you have it. As well as my issue with the bullsh*t achievements.

 

I just would love Rockstar to take a step forward and actually let the gameplay flow smoothly and have proper shooting mechanics like we got in Max Payne 3 and put that into the rest of the games, that is what they should go by.

  • Th3MaN1 likes this

Th3MaN1
  • Th3MaN1

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2011
  • Romania

#37

Posted 05 March 2014 - 06:13 PM

Of course. V was a huge improvement on the shooting, but it still lacks quite a lot and leaves things to be desired.

 

I wouldn't get your hopes up for change. We had Max Payne 3 and I agree all the shooting mechanics, reload animations even down to how he put the very tip of his finger on the trigger on a Taurus PT92 (the trigger pull is quite long so you do need a fingertip sometimes) was f*cking outstanding, it was just the rest of the game that let it down in my opinion. I wanted a co-op mode, I wanted a Noir setting like the first two. I didn't like the choices they took with the character, such as his appearance and washed up old bum attitude. But the majority of my dislike for it was the plot, the amount of cutscenes that are unskippable and no real choice in the weapons you brought into levels, some that would end up with no ammo instantly and be useless the rest of the game like the desert eagle. It felt so nice, yet they don't let you have it. As well as my issue with the bullsh*t achievements.

 

I just would love Rockstar to take a step forward and actually let the gameplay flow smoothly and have proper shooting mechanics like we got in Max Payne 3 and put that into the rest of the games, that is what they should go by.

The changes were quite big, but for some bullsh*t reason, I can't get enough of that game. It did seem weird that Max started all that heavy drinking, and the swearing just made this Max Payne a different Max Payne. But I've grown used to it, and I love the way the old school Max (leather jacket) looks. I only got to complete the game once on PC (this is probably why cutscenes weren't an issue for me), and when I got the Desert Eagle at the Panama chapter, I didn't even bother picking up an assault rifle. I just went through the rest of the level with it. When I saw the same gun being held by Max at the airport level, I thought I'd get to play around with it. Heh, f*ck no. You get 28 bullets for it if I remember.

 

But if there's a weapon they didn't get in that game it was the f*cking M4. I dunno about the M16 platforms being used in Sao Paolo, or Brazil for that matter, but the flashback levels could have had it. I wonder if the name "Colt Commando" means anything to R*. It f*cking does to me. When I saw that gun in Max Payne 1 for the first time, I didn't bother with any other weapon. Instead they release that gun as DLC for the multiplayer.

 

Also Last Stand was utter bullsh*t, I admit, it saved my ass a few times when I really didn't feel like replaying the specific scene, but if I get the chance to play again, I'm going Old School mode.


esmittystud101
  • esmittystud101

    I play both sides of the fence

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013
  • United-States

#38

Posted 05 March 2014 - 06:46 PM

Red Dead Redemption on Next Gen. This excites me.

  • Th3MaN1 likes this

Myron
  • Myron

    I shot Reagan

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • Palestine

#39

Posted 05 March 2014 - 06:54 PM

This thread is an abomination.

Th3MaN1
  • Th3MaN1

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2011
  • Romania

#40

Posted 05 March 2014 - 06:57 PM

Red Dead Redemption on Next Gen. This excites me.

I'm not the guy who looks for graphics in games, but considering how rich RDR was in graphics, and also quite huge, I cannot wait to see what the next game in the series will look like on next-gen.

 

 

This thread is an abomination.

 

Mind you, it's not. Me and Daz might have strayed off-topic, but I found our debate quite refreshing from the generic debates and rants.


Myron
  • Myron

    I shot Reagan

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • Palestine

#41

Posted 05 March 2014 - 07:12 PM

 

Red Dead Redemption on Next Gen. This excites me.

I'm not the guy who looks for graphics in games, but considering how rich RDR was in graphics, and also quite huge, I cannot wait to see what the next game in the series will look like on next-gen.

 

 

This thread is an abomination.

 

Mind you, it's not. Me and Daz might have strayed off-topic, but I found our debate quite refreshing from the generic debates and rants.

 

I'm referring to the idea behind this thread.

  • Th3MaN1 likes this

Th3MaN1
  • Th3MaN1

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2011
  • Romania

#42

Posted 05 March 2014 - 07:14 PM

 

 

Red Dead Redemption on Next Gen. This excites me.

I'm not the guy who looks for graphics in games, but considering how rich RDR was in graphics, and also quite huge, I cannot wait to see what the next game in the series will look like on next-gen.

 

 

This thread is an abomination.

 

Mind you, it's not. Me and Daz might have strayed off-topic, but I found our debate quite refreshing from the generic debates and rants.

 

I'm referring to the idea behind this thread.

 

I think my like on your comment is more than enough to show that I agree.

  • Myron likes this

B Dawg
  • B Dawg

    What exactly are we doing?

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

#43

Posted 05 March 2014 - 07:41 PM

The speed you get from holding down A/X should be like that all the time. Also I don't know about you but I only have one thumb on my right hand, so holding down A/X and using the analog stick to aim is completely impossible to do.

 

What I mean you can't see the crosshair, is for example Saint's Row, the crosshair is always on screen and any moment you hit the RT button it will fire with no delay. You can't judge aiming without seeing the crosshair at all times even if you can quick fire like that.

Well I use my finger closest to the thumb (whatever you call it) to move faster, and the middle finger for the trigger.


CryptReaperDorian
  • CryptReaperDorian

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2007

#44

Posted 05 March 2014 - 07:57 PM

I still don't see how people find Max Payne 3 to be a very difficult game.  Really, the only part of that game that almost made me throw my controller (yes, on console) at the TV was the "big fight" in the last mission.  On "Old School" difficulty, with Free Aim and a controller, it only took me two tries to beat that part anyways.  If anything, Rockstar Game's seventh generation games are MUCH easier than their sixth generation games (and those are also easier than the likes of their fifth generation games).  GTA III, Manhunt, and the first two Max Payne games are quite a bit more difficult than Max Payne 3.  Max Payne 3 is probably the most difficult seventh generation game R* has made, but that really doesn't say too much as their other games have been quite easy.

 

Anyways, I do have to agree with Daz about auto-aim.  If a game is made on auto-aim, then "free aim" will likely suffer as a result.  It also makes the developer look like they aren't confident about their aiming mechanics.  If a game has perfect, or next-to-perfect, aiming mechanics, then practically nobody would need auto-aim.  Then again, good aiming mechanics tend to lead to games being easier, and that might explain one reason why R*'s older games were more difficult (they were very clunky).  What needs to be done along with improving such mechanics is also improving enemy AI or making the AI come in larger swarms (fighting more enemies at one time).


Forty
  • Forty

    he shouts stroke darker the strings

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2002
  • None

#45

Posted 05 March 2014 - 08:44 PM Edited by Forty, 05 March 2014 - 08:44 PM.

The speed you get from holding down A/X should be like that all the time. Also I don't know about you but I only have one thumb on my right hand, so holding down A/X and using the analog stick to aim is completely impossible to do.
 
What I mean you can't see the crosshair, is for example Saint's Row, the crosshair is always on screen and any moment you hit the RT button it will fire with no delay. You can't judge aiming without seeing the crosshair at all times even if you can quick fire like that.

Well I use my finger closest to the thumb (whatever you call it) to move faster, and the middle finger for the trigger.


You shouldn't need the fingers of a gymnast to perform a basic sprint and shoot. There shouldn't even be a sprint button. The speed of movement should be entirely based on analog stick pressure.
  • Daz, B Dawg and Th3MaN1 like this

Daz
  • Daz

    Pirandello/Kruger

  • Feroci Racing
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2001
  • None

#46

Posted 06 March 2014 - 09:51 AM

 

 

The speed you get from holding down A/X should be like that all the time. Also I don't know about you but I only have one thumb on my right hand, so holding down A/X and using the analog stick to aim is completely impossible to do.
 
What I mean you can't see the crosshair, is for example Saint's Row, the crosshair is always on screen and any moment you hit the RT button it will fire with no delay. You can't judge aiming without seeing the crosshair at all times even if you can quick fire like that.

Well I use my finger closest to the thumb (whatever you call it) to move faster, and the middle finger for the trigger.

 


You shouldn't need the fingers of a gymnast to perform a basic sprint and shoot. There shouldn't even be a sprint button. The speed of movement should be entirely based on analog stick pressure.

 

This.

 

I don't want to have to have my hands attempt some stupid manuever that will make my hand look like an octopus trying to use a dial phone.

 

Forty nailed it there, and was entirely my point, I don't know why there is nothing in the options for rockstar games to set your character to "always run" and just have the game disable it whenever you are in a shop or confined space. But really it is stupid.

 

No other proper third person shooters have any issue when it comes to shooting and accuracy, because you have free reign over your movement and aiming.

 

The SOCOM games nailed it perfectly 10 years ago.

  • Forty likes this

universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    THIS ONE GOES OUT TO ALL THE RAVERS IN THE NATION.

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States

#47

Posted 06 March 2014 - 04:25 PM

I'd like to see them remake the original Manhunt. Or failing that, remake III Liberty City as a map for GTA Online or something like that.

 

Ohh, that'd be swell.


Th3MaN1
  • Th3MaN1

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2011
  • Romania

#48

Posted 06 March 2014 - 06:26 PM

I'd like to see them remake the original Manhunt. Or failing that, remake III Liberty City as a map for GTA Online or something like that.

 

Ohh, that'd be swell.

Jesus Christ, imagine Manhunt on PS4/Xbone. Even if the game would be heavily censored, I'm sure it will still be quite gory.


JKan420
  • JKan420

    stoned alcoholic

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2013
  • None

#49

Posted 06 March 2014 - 10:47 PM

Bully
Manhunt
Warriors

Bully may have been my fav R* game, hell maybe even my fav game of all time.

CryptReaperDorian
  • CryptReaperDorian

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2007

#50

Posted 06 March 2014 - 11:46 PM

That's another thing.  If you're going to have the aim on the side of the characters' shoulders, you need to be able to switch between left and right shoulder views.  Otherwise, this creates an unbalance.  For instance, let's say that two people are strafing in and out of cover while shooting at each other in GTA V.  The person that aims around the right side of their cover will have a strict advantage over the person aiming around the left side of their cover.  The latter person needs to expose more of their body to get their aim on the enemy.  The best thing R* could have done with GTA V was putting the aiming reticle directly above the characters' heads, like in the old SOCOM games.  This creates an equal playing field, doesn't require additional buttons to create a level playing field (shoulder views), and it cuts down on "corner glitching".


Forty
  • Forty

    he shouts stroke darker the strings

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2002
  • None

#51

Posted 07 March 2014 - 03:40 AM

I'd like to see them remake the original Manhunt. Or failing that, remake III Liberty City as a map for GTA Online or something like that.
 
Ohh, that'd be swell.

Jesus Christ, imagine Manhunt on PS4/Xbone. Even if the game would be heavily censored, I'm sure it will still be quite gory.


I would play the sh*t out of that. I really enjoyed Manhunt back in the day. I haven't played it in many years now, so I don't know if it ages well.

Ermac.
  • Ermac.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2012
  • Jamaica

#52

Posted 07 March 2014 - 03:52 AM Edited by Ermac., 07 March 2014 - 03:53 AM.

On the topic of Max Payne 3's stellar gunplay and attention to detail, it would be amazing if they went back and redid the original Max Payne again with today's tech.

  • Th3MaN1 likes this

Th3MaN1
  • Th3MaN1

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2011
  • Romania

#53

Posted 07 March 2014 - 04:01 PM

That's another thing.  If you're going to have the aim on the side of the characters' shoulders, you need to be able to switch between left and right shoulder views.  Otherwise, this creates an unbalance.  For instance, let's say that two people are strafing in and out of cover while shooting at each other in GTA V.  The person that aims around the right side of their cover will have a strict advantage over the person aiming around the left side of their cover.  The latter person needs to expose more of their body to get their aim on the enemy.  The best thing R* could have done with GTA V was putting the aiming reticle directly above the characters' heads, like in the old SOCOM games.  This creates an equal playing field, doesn't require additional buttons to create a level playing field (shoulder views), and it cuts down on "corner glitching".

But how would that work camera-wise? Isn't SOCOM an FPS?


Sting4S
  • Sting4S

    ♢ Corverra ♢

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • United-States

#54

Posted 07 March 2014 - 05:41 PM

As silly as it sounds, I would love them to redo V without getting influenced from IV complaints.
  • SonOfLiberty, B Dawg, Th3MaN1 and 2 others like this

B Dawg
  • B Dawg

    What exactly are we doing?

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

#55

Posted 07 March 2014 - 06:03 PM

 

That's another thing.  If you're going to have the aim on the side of the characters' shoulders, you need to be able to switch between left and right shoulder views.  Otherwise, this creates an unbalance.  For instance, let's say that two people are strafing in and out of cover while shooting at each other in GTA V.  The person that aims around the right side of their cover will have a strict advantage over the person aiming around the left side of their cover.  The latter person needs to expose more of their body to get their aim on the enemy.  The best thing R* could have done with GTA V was putting the aiming reticle directly above the characters' heads, like in the old SOCOM games.  This creates an equal playing field, doesn't require additional buttons to create a level playing field (shoulder views), and it cuts down on "corner glitching".

But how would that work camera-wise? Isn't SOCOM an FPS?

 

GTA III and VC have a similar camera system, the reticule is a bit to the right of the character center.


Th3MaN1
  • Th3MaN1

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2011
  • Romania

#56

Posted 07 March 2014 - 06:17 PM

 

 

That's another thing.  If you're going to have the aim on the side of the characters' shoulders, you need to be able to switch between left and right shoulder views.  Otherwise, this creates an unbalance.  For instance, let's say that two people are strafing in and out of cover while shooting at each other in GTA V.  The person that aims around the right side of their cover will have a strict advantage over the person aiming around the left side of their cover.  The latter person needs to expose more of their body to get their aim on the enemy.  The best thing R* could have done with GTA V was putting the aiming reticle directly above the characters' heads, like in the old SOCOM games.  This creates an equal playing field, doesn't require additional buttons to create a level playing field (shoulder views), and it cuts down on "corner glitching".

But how would that work camera-wise? Isn't SOCOM an FPS?

 

GTA III and VC have a similar camera system, the reticule is a bit to the right of the character center.

 

Yeah you're right, but there's a reason the cover system is there. And considering that most people play on auto-aim, it wouldn't create a huge difference. Daz was right; they need to create the game so it's made for free-aim, not auto-aim. Saints Row 3 and even 4 did a good job with this, and I could give many, many examples.


Misbegotten cad
  • Misbegotten cad

    Prankster

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2013

#57

Posted 08 March 2014 - 09:24 AM

definitely GTA Vice city. I just love the miami style island town in the game.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users