Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Remember when everyone hated this game?

146 replies to this topic
HaythamKenway
  • HaythamKenway

    Mister Doctor

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

#61

Posted 08 July 2014 - 04:31 PM

And yeah, that's exactly what we should do. Give R* some space, stop criticising every move they make, including any moves towards trying to satisfy their fanbase (as a company should) and making money (as a company should). But I doubt they really felt under any "pressure". I mean, they're a company for starters, companies don't have pressure. Each of the workers for the company sure didn't have too much pressure, I mean, not any more than they'd usually have. In fact, if anything, the more GTA is a success, the less pressure they'll feel for the next one, because they've got a certainty for a base rate of success.

Criticism is healthy. Of course, we should not get up in arms and blow things out of proportions. R* should also take everything with grain of salt and find the right balance.

 

I think they did felt pressure. R* are people. Designers, programmers, artists. They are ambitious and want to receive praise for their work. It's not far-fetched to think that when faced with so much criticism and saw people hyping SA and SR2 as best things ever, they just caved in. Both TBoGT and V feel like an apology for making IV and TLaD so different from 3D Era GTAs.

 

Video game "industry" isn't just about pleasing the crowd and making money. Well, if you're not a CEO at some big publishing corporation I guess. That's a cynical viewpoint. Of course, both are important. But I believe video games are art and artistic integrity and vision should come first and foremost. If developers adhered only to what sells and what is popular at the time, we would never get many of gaming's most original and creative titles.

 

The fact is, sales are the true representative at the end of the day. That, and possibly the critical acclaim they get with every single major GTA title they've released to this day, have kept them going and kept them being able to take the next game to new heights. You say they're wrong for listening to SA fanboy's? Well if it wasn't for the huge success of SA, IV would have been a lot more limited, and probably turned out a lot less praise-worthy itself. If R*'s next move are to attempt a repeat of SA's success (just like they were basically doing with IV and III's success, I might add) then good! And they've done it! With the money they've made and are still yet to me, the next GTA games budget will allow them twice the freedom they already had, and even if you don't like V, with every disappointing game, they're a step closer to a game which is more perfect for you. For me, SA was that game, and unfortunately I don't think it can be replaced in my heart [/over_sensitive] but if V at least even nears that, I'm happy. If not, I've just got to trust that in the future they'll bring out a game that will completely blow SA out of the water, and with the success of GTA V, I can be happy knowing that at least the GTA series is not dying any time soon, which provides a greater chance for that "perfect game" (which doesn't exist) to come about.

It would be very interesting to see how much would V sell if it went in IV's footsteps. I doubt it would be very different. GTA sells on name alone and that's one more reason for R* to take risks. They have one of biggest titles in the industry, they can afford doing things their way. They aren't some small studio that has to worry about their game selling, so they won't have to shut their doors. They are an international behemoth backed by a huge publsher.

 

As for the budget, it works both ways. Obviously, with higher budget, you can up the production values, but sometimes, with smaller budget or with larger technological constrains, you have to learn how to use what you have more effectively. You can see where the money went in a game like GTA, but many games have insanely bloated budgets nowadays and does it make them better than some smaller titles?

 

And yeah, V isn't the end of the world. Every studio's bound to make a weak game. And, as Ubisoft demonstrated with AC IV, it's possible to bounce back and make something amazing even straight off the weaker title. The problem I see with V is that it didn't try to do something new and instead opted for a pastiche of what worked in previous games. It's not a step forward (SA), not a step sideways (IV). It's running in circles.

  • B Dawg, Official General, Ermac and 1 other like this

Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#62

Posted 08 July 2014 - 04:50 PM Edited by Official General, 08 July 2014 - 06:14 PM.

Well OG I for one enjoy Deji's posts even though we have zero similar opinions.


Great for you. I have a life, I ain't got time to read boring, never-ending essays littered with bullsh*t. I don't know about you.

 

@ Deji

 

I'm beginning to think you are really looking for attention with your recent posts. I'm not ducking anything, I just don't have the time to repeat myself constantly or have squabbles. 

 

Look, I don't care to know how smart, intelligent, and witty you can be, you don't impress me or have me in awe of your 'amazing qualities'. Maybe someone else on here will feed your hunger for narcissistic-laced recognition to be known as the forum's golden boy, but I'm not interested. You're beginning to get personal with the fact that you don't like my posts criticizing V, and I really don't know why because I don't know you personally, so seriously mate, you should just relax and stop getting all worked up. You don't agree with me, and I don't agree with you, I think you should leave it at that, and either simply ignore my posts if they hurt you so much, or you can respond accordingly without any hostility. 

 

 

I don't know how many times I'm gonna have to repeat this one but... RDR WAS NOT MADE BY ROCKSTAR NORTH!

 
"R*" if you mean "Rockstar Games", is a completely different entity from the developers who create each individual game. You need to notice the difference between development and branding. While they are all "Rockstar Games" games, Rockstar Games are mostly in charge of publishing, public relations, marketing, etc., and they have very little effect on what actually makes each game good or not, so any such comparison between GTA and RDR while talking about R* is pretty silly. The developers of each game don't even live on the same continent.

 

 And as for this, ha ha ! Lool, I cannot take this seriously  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

 

Ok bro, I'm sorry I meant ROCKSTAR GAMES IN GENERAL  :sarcasm: 

 

There are you happy now ? I should hope so. And I will make the comparison between GTA V and RDR if I want, there is nothing to stop me, not even your bullsh*t 'instructions' that no one ever listens to. 


Holderness
  • Holderness

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#63

Posted 08 July 2014 - 05:13 PM Edited by Holderness, 08 July 2014 - 05:16 PM.

I for one am torn by the fact IV is/was hated. When people are playing VI and it turns out to be a game for the half hour gamer, I will be sitting in the IV section laughing. Not the mocking kind of laughter, no...the "you could have stopped this" kinda laughter. V pisses me off the most out of any GTA game. I just can't see them going back to the drama and superb writing we got in IV. They can make a cookie cutter GTA with planes and loud noises for at least two generations, and still make out like bandits. EFLC didn't sell well and I knew after that they'd take the series in a more profit centric direction. These super car DLCs are just a way for Rock star to seem awake and connected to the game. It is bullsh*t, no longer do they have to scout talented voice actors and spend time writing scripts, in 2014 with social media being as popular as it is, they just have to tweet the fact a new DLC is live and OHHHHH look at YOU rock star, such awesome DLC content! OH I am so jealous that I can't use a musket in IV, like what the f*ck? Rock star is becoming a parody of itself.

 

"Oh no, Rockstar released a GTA I don't like! THE SERIES IS RUINED!"

 

You can commend the writing of GTA IV if you like, because GTA IV did have a great story, but at the end of the day, IV's plot can be summarised as "Serbian guy kills everybody in New York". What disappoints the story is that the missions are incredibly tedious. "Hey, Niko, go to X and kill Y for me."  At least in GTA V the missions are diverse. Even if the heists were a let down, we could expect something new whenever we began a new mission.

 

The fact that you called GTA V "cookie cutter" is a tad bit humorous to me. The police in V are far more brutal than they were in IV. Besides, IV was quite easy any way, unless you're referring to the driving (although V's driving physics were hard to adapt to at first). What's wrong with planes? What do you mean by "loud noises"?

 

Finally, if you don't live beneath a rock, you would have noticed that the last two DLC's didn't include super cars. Besides, it shows that R* gives a sh*t about the game. And it's free. What more could you ask for?

 

Seems to me like you're just having a paddy simply because the game is different, trying to make yourself look like a hardcore gamer. You can be as sarcastic as you want to be but it's not going to change a damn thing.


Deji
  • Deji

    Coding like a Rockstar!

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2007
  • None
  • Contribution Award [Mods]

#64

Posted 08 July 2014 - 06:02 PM Edited by Deji, 08 July 2014 - 06:13 PM.

Criticism is healthy. Of course, we should not get up in arms and blow things out of proportions. R* should also take everything with grain of salt and find the right balance.
 
I think they did felt pressure. R* are people. Designers, programmers, artists. They are ambitious and want to receive praise for their work. It's not far-fetched to think that when faced with so much criticism and saw people hyping SA and SR2 as best things ever, they just caved in.

Well, call it just my modder enthusiasm, but I always imagine what I'd feel like if I were a programmer at R* North (R* North are people, R* games are just a big greedy corporate logo - again, neither of them created RDR!!!) I would never feel pressured. With the kind of mind-frame which us budding game designers tend to have, I'd always be up for the challenge to meet the high expectations I've already achieved by having made a dozen great games. And hey, look at those V trailers, particularly the one with the cheesy female voice-over, if anything, they seemed TOO proud :p
 

Both TBoGT and V feel like an apology for making IV and TLaD so different from 3D Era GTAs.

I for one REALLY appreciated that. As sick as I later realised it was towards TLaD fans (good ;P) I LOVED how they "dealt" with Johnny. That applied to my more "casual gamer" friend, too, who barely gave IV half a chance at all. We were in fits, because it seemed pretty clear that North, or Dan Houser (though I'm always sceptical of Houser's ACTUAL involvement in GTA - no one ever mentions The Benz, who to me is the REAL presence behind GTA), really regretted their decision to go with the "biker dude fad", which, especially after being perpetuated by crap TV like Sons of Anarchy which only achieve success based on the false image they embellish, perhaps made them feel quite ashamed.

(My apologies to SonOfLiberty all Sons of Anarchy, The Lost and Damned and IV fans, as always :p)

See, if you asked me, I'd say R* were catering to an audience more with IV than V. With V, they were doing something they'd done before, but bigger. In fact, even the 3 protagonists idea was only held back from SA because of technical limitations. V is more like the game they wanted SA to be, whereas I don't know where to place IV. But again, that's another example of how this "V ends the GTA series!" thing can go either way. I could say "IV ended the GTA series!!! but then yay, V revived it!!!" and there's no right or true answer. What's always more telling, though, is the fact that both IV and V (as well as SA, VC and III) were well-received both critically and commercially. There were haters for IV, and now there's haters for V, but they're the minority of a large audience, and they always will be. The fact that many of these aren't the same people goes to show even further that their claims that either game was the worst in the series are always mistaken.
 

Video game "industry" isn't just about pleasing the crowd and making money. Well, if you're not a CEO at some big publishing corporation I guess. That's a cynical viewpoint. Of course, both are important. But I believe video games are art and artistic integrity and vision should come first and foremost. If developers adhered only to what sells and what is popular at the time, we would never get many of gaming's most original and creative titles.

I'm pretty sure entertainment as a whole is about pleasing the crowd and making money. Pleasing the crowd being the more worthy of the causes, and making money being the "well what's in it for us?" part. But the idea isn't to "adhere" to what sells and is popular, but instead to predict what will sell and be popular, and to keep making those predictions. There's no point in making what's already out there (though that's a somewhat reasonable tactic employed by most game companies) but there's always the business end to any business. This, by the way, is why I don't agree with brand names, logos and companies...

So I wasn't being cynical, I was being positive about something that's not the best situation. I've already ranted about this plenty:
http://gtaforums.com...m/?p=1065402176
TL;DR: Branding is a lazy way to achieve permanent success off of little achievement. If making games is a dream, then it shouldn't be considered a job and mixed with money. And a franchise is just an illusion. If we gave no value to branding, logos or franchises, companies wouldn't exist and the few games that get made (by more dedicated people) would probably all turn out to be much higher in quality and more unique. But that's not how it is, so money IS more important. I don't like it, but I'm positive about it, because at least with money fuelling dozens of companies into making hundreds of games, we get a lot more variety to choose from (most of it sucky, but oh well) and with competition between companies over money, more of a chance that at least one will produce a good game every now and then.
 

It would be very interesting to see how much would V sell if it went in IV's footsteps. I doubt it would be very different. GTA sells on name alone and that's one more reason for R* to take risks. They have one of biggest titles in the industry, they can afford doing things their way. They aren't some small studio that has to worry about their game selling, so they won't have to shut their doors. They are an international behemoth backed by a huge publsher.

Well, IV sold well anyway, so it wouldn't be much of a fair test :p

And while they are backed by a huge publisher, investors and the like, they DO have to worry about the game selling, more so, in fact. While they've got high demand already, which cuts them SOME slack, they have high expectations that depend on them selling as much as possible. TakeTwo were apparently not doing all that well, so with the GTA franchise being their biggest asset, risks are somewhat out of the question. Franchises can be somewhat fragile. Screw around with it too much and you'll kill the illusion completely. It's like hypnosis - you can make people do what you want, bark like a dog, give you money, but if you tell them to dance like a chicken one too many times, they might just figure out something's up! From then on, it will be much harder to re-gain control and convince them to let you into their mind. I think that's a perfect analogy for franchises, really!
 

As for the budget, it works both ways. Obviously, with higher budget, you can up the production values, but sometimes, with smaller budget or with larger technological constrains, you have to learn how to use what you have more effectively. You can see where the money went in a game like GTA, but many games have insanely bloated budgets nowadays and does it make them better than some smaller titles?

I learnt a bit about game business and budgets and mostly about the potential and growing profit in the games industry. Games get larger investments than movies nowadays and there's more money in that industry than the music and movie industries combined (or something to that effect - this was a couple of years ago, lol). And the budget isn't so much about technological constraints as much as paying those damn greedy employees... they're the ones who have to create the technology, after all. So a high budget might not always produce better results, and a low budget may also heed surprising results, because it then comes down to things which are more specific than can be calculated, such as the actual individuals working there - which won't change according to the budget, but you're likely to get better results by over-paying a moron than under-paying a genius. The reason North will get a big budget these days, though, is that TakeTwo have a track record of sales (I doubt TakeTwo cares about the creative aspects or the fans, really) and know that North are the best way to spend the huge amounts of cash that must be invested in them. Rockstar North are free to take care of the creative aspects, but they always need to remember who pays their salaries.
 

And yeah, V isn't the end of the world.

Aye, on the contrary, I find this the beginning of a whole new era. It's more like what IV should have been, to me.
 

Every studio's bound to make a weak game. And, as Ubisoft demonstrated with AC IV, it's possible to bounce back and make something amazing even straight off the weaker title. The problem I see with V is that it didn't try to do something new and instead opted for a pastiche of what worked in previous games. It's not a step forward (SA), not a step sideways (IV). It's running in circles.

Yeah, AC:IV bounced back... a bit. It's not hard to go wrong with 'pirates', though. The pirate fad is just as guilty as the biker fad. But heck, I enjoyed the sea battles a whole lot. It was only after sinking about the 150th ship that I begun to realise how repetitive it was :p

But they didn't try anything "new" with IV either, if you ask me... it's still a city re-visit (which I have to suspect they'll do again with VC before they try to figure out a completely new setting... ugh - though to show my hypocritical side, I'd love them to do it with SF & LV) and the only thing that made it feel so different was the fact they had a totally new engine to try to adapt for it. That felt more like a weakness than anything - like they'd detracted from GTA's arcade-ness not on purpose, but because they simply weren't able to make it feel like the GTA we already knew, they steered into the skid. It's still a good game, but it made me feel like it was an action game, and not GTA's usual hard-to-define self. And as I've pointed out, when you break the illusion of a franchise, being something that's supposed to maintain the same essence, it starts to lose power. So good or not, I'm glad they managed to "recover" for V, and from my perspective, they have moved forward. It has taken GTA in a whole new light. Heists, multiple protagonists, etc. - all the things that everyone was excited about before V was released still apply, even if they're not quite satisfying enough, that's not too bad, it just means they need to improve on that idea next time, but I'm 100% sure V is a step in the RIGHT direction.

TL;DR: IV - a well-executed step in the wrong direction? V - a poorly-executed step in the right direction? Who's to say...


EDIT: Ugh, now to pay attention to unworthy posts which were made addressing me while I was writing this, much more enjoyable, positive post.

P.S. I like the way you put things in that post. As you can see, it may have over-indulged me :p



@OG

Look, I don't care to know how smart, intelligent, and witty you can be, you don't impress me or have me in awe of your 'amazing qualities'

Smartness, intelligence and wit doesn't impress you? That explains everything! Now I totally understand your views on GTA V!
  • HaythamKenway likes this

Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#65

Posted 08 July 2014 - 06:18 PM Edited by Official General, 08 July 2014 - 06:21 PM.

Smartness, intelligence and wit doesn't impress you? That explains everything! Now I totally understand your views on GTA V!

 

It's actually my own subtle way of saying that I don't see those qualities in you  ;)

 

So in other words, that's why I stated that I was never impressed in the first place. 

 

Anyway, I'm done, I'm getting back on topic. 


Deji
  • Deji

    Coding like a Rockstar!

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2007
  • None
  • Contribution Award [Mods]

#66

Posted 08 July 2014 - 06:18 PM Edited by Deji, 08 July 2014 - 07:23 PM.

Wasn't very witty, now was it?

 

EDIT: Since you decided to discreetly edit with that "getting back on topic" remark, perhaps I should point out how you were in fact the one to descend into pettiness and divert the purpose of this entire debate *cough*, because you evidently weren't able to actually intelligently tell me what you thought about my very on-topic opinion. This is why I ignore you, my friend.


Mr_Leone
  • Mr_Leone

    The X

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2010
  • None

#67

Posted 08 July 2014 - 06:32 PM

I just love long essays. Especially if they are littered with bullsh*t.
  • Deji and Official General like this

Deji
  • Deji

    Coding like a Rockstar!

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2007
  • None
  • Contribution Award [Mods]

#68

Posted 08 July 2014 - 07:41 PM

I can accept the fact IV wasn't exactly diverse in free roam, sure. One thing I cannot accept is people saying LC fell short. Compared to what? It has no competition at all. None. No other game has came close to achieving what IV did with Liberty City. I've played watch dogs and even it cannot compare to the detail of IV. Even V falls short compared to IV, with the same Mexican led in every place excluding the Alamo sea. Again, cherry picking, but these are things that are important to, how you put it Deji, the abstract gamer. Sure the 3D era was casual, but that was because they couldn't produce the cutscenes and the graphics weren't good enough to tell a gripping tale. I mean, Jesus, they had no facial animations at the time. Hard to portray emotion in the 3D era. I hate SA, I do, but they did the right thing. Better to go all out on gameplay that was proven fluid and effective than half ass a crime drama. The issue I have however is that they already pulled the plug on story first, gameplay second. Mark my words, IV will be the only GTA that plays by those rules.

 

I've only just seen this post, but this is exactly the kind of thing which I think has ruined GTA fandom. GTA IV! It did something different, and I could praise R* for that too, if it wasn't for all the fans who apparently don't like any other GTA now except for it.

 

But this is why I try to preach that games should be treated as their own thing. If you've only really liked IV, because apparently the story is more important than game-play (ugh, remember those days when IF games had a story, they were usually completely ridiculous? I miss those), then I don't think you should be saying what is done right and wrong about all the other GTA's. What if I think GTA should have stayed in its classic arcade-y top-down and died trying to maintain that? That's just not the right kind of attitude to have about a franchise, really... It could have stayed story-driven and gloomy like IV was, but it wouldn't have lasted. Instead there would probably have been more people who hate it now than there are that enjoy it, and the series would have to come to a slowdown, because games aren't worth making for a very limited audience.

 

Instead, enjoy and talk about what few games in the series you do like, and play other games which are a part of other franchises if you don't like the current game in the series. No one criticises Table Tennis or other random games published by the same company which they may have a reason to hate... and in this case, it sounds almost like you want to convert a franchise made for people with different tastes than yours into one that suits your tastes better, simply because they once made something that DID suit your tastes.

 

But heck, if you don't appreciate even the 3D 'era' GTA's, I don't really get what you expect at all from GTA. For me, the GTA series is one of the few, if not the only, that has always produced something I can appreciate. V and even IV don't change that for me, and my arguments mostly apply to those who think it should, because if the fact that both are heavily criticised and even hated at one point goes to show that GTA is just GTA, and it will always do what it does best. It has yet to fail at that, despite what many think. I could understand people who didn't like IV and still don't like V, but as long as they're claiming to be fans of the GTA series, I fail to see where the ultimate distinction between them really lies.


Donut
  • Donut

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2013
  • None

#69

Posted 08 July 2014 - 08:15 PM

I don't get why people think writing novels will change someone's opinion on a game.

 

If you want to just argue, a quick paragraph or even a few sentences suffices just fine.

  • Official General, namor and A-Wax8 like this

Bender
  • Bender

    is it christmas avatar time already?

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2013
  • Netherlands

#70

Posted 08 July 2014 - 08:19 PM

I do. And now people hate V, and if/when VI comes out they'll hate VI and love V, and so on and so on.

yeah it's like a goddamn michael jackson or vincent van gogh with these guys.


Donut
  • Donut

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2013
  • None

#71

Posted 08 July 2014 - 08:21 PM

It (GTA IV) did something different, and I could praise R* for that too, if it wasn't for all the fans who apparently don't like any other GTA now except for it.

 

Careful how you word things. You make it seem like us GTA IV fans hate the series. In my case, that is not true at all. I love every one of the 3D games in their own way, especially SanAndreas. SA was great fun, and it had the mindset to go full-force crazy sh*t, which is the main problem with V. It didn't know to be crazy like SA or realistic like IV. But that's my two cents...

 

And if you're just talking about Official General, his avatar picture is Tommy so i think he likes Vice City as well ;)

  • HaythamKenway likes this

Mr_Leone
  • Mr_Leone

    The X

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2010
  • None

#72

Posted 08 July 2014 - 08:50 PM

My name is Mr_Leone. I've devoted plenty of time into the LCS section. I love the old games, going back to the 3D era. I'm just saying that for me, in my opinion, IV was the peak.
  • MiamiViceCity, Official General and Donut like this

Deji
  • Deji

    Coding like a Rockstar!

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2007
  • None
  • Contribution Award [Mods]

#73

Posted 08 July 2014 - 09:52 PM

I don't get why people think writing novels will change someone's opinion on a game.
 
If you want to just argue, a quick paragraph or even a few sentences suffices just fine.

Because EVERYONE can post just a quick paragraph of their opinion, that's easy, but if something really has merit to it, it should be possible to explain it in great detail. If you opinion is worth listening to, you should be willing to do the hard thing and fully explain yourself. If you can sum up your thoughts in a couple of sentences, you've obviously not thought enough about them.

Perhaps you should tell a politician that instead of a long, drawn-out speech, they should just summarise why they feel people should let them rule the country. Try telling a teacher that they spend too long concentrating on the details, and that they should just bullet-point the facts with extreme brevity.

What I don't get, is why so many members of a discussion board are so scared of actual discussion. They're fine with just putting their opinion out there, but when it comes to actual communication, sharing of knowledge or perspective, and actually trying to take something from a debate and instead of just going "here's my thought, DEAL WITH IT!", can't go "I'll now explain my thoughts about this... [begin_novel]". Actually, I completely get it, I'm just being as sarcastic and rhetorical as you are.

The difference is, I wouldn't attempt to insult anyone's intellect by thinking that I could just post a line or two about what I think and expect anyone to listen to me. Anyone who has the patience to read my posts has the intelligence to learn something, or at the very least show me the same respect by explaining why they think I'm wrong in as much detail as it takes. The English language isn't efficient enough to pack a complex thought process down into a few sentences, and if you think it is, then either your understanding of English is somewhat limited or your thought process is somewhat shallow.


But this is very off-topic now, which is probably why OG likes it.

Careful how you word things. You make it seem like us GTA IV fans hate the series. In my case, that is not true at all. I love every one of the 3D games in their own way, especially SanAndreas. SA was great fun, and it had the mindset to go full-force crazy sh*t, which is the main problem with V. It didn't know to be crazy like SA or realistic like IV. But that's my two cents...
 
And if you're just talking about Official General, his avatar picture is Tommy so i think he likes Vice City as well ;)

Not at all. I never said ALL IV fans hate the series, did I? I was addressing the fact that many people have only joined the series since IV, and that causes a lot of conflict of interest between old and new fans of the series. And this topic is all about how IV was hated. I think you need to look more deeply into the context ;)

Donut
  • Donut

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2013
  • None

#74

Posted 08 July 2014 - 10:03 PM

 

I don't get why people think writing novels will change someone's opinion on a game.
 
If you want to just argue, a quick paragraph or even a few sentences suffices just fine.

Because EVERYONE can post just a quick paragraph of their opinion, that's easy, but if something really has merit to it, it should be possible to explain it in great detail. If you opinion is worth listening to, you should be willing to do the hard thing and fully explain yourself. If you can sum up your thoughts in a couple of sentences, you've obviously not thought enough about them.

Perhaps you should tell a politician that instead of a long, drawn-out speech, they should just summarise why they feel people should let them rule the country. Try telling a teacher that they spend too long concentrating on the details, and that they should just bullet-point the facts with extreme brevity.

What I don't get, is why so many members of a discussion board are so scared of actual discussion. They're fine with just putting their opinion out there, but when it comes to actual communication, sharing of knowledge or perspective, and actually trying to take something from a debate and instead of just going "here's my thought, DEAL WITH IT!", can't go "I'll now explain my thoughts about this... [begin_novel]". Actually, I completely get it, I'm just being as sarcastic and rhetorical as you are.

The difference is, I wouldn't attempt to insult anyone's intellect by thinking that I could just post a line or two about what I think and expect anyone to listen to me. Anyone who has the patience to read my posts has the intelligence to learn something, or at the very least show me the same respect by explaining why they think I'm wrong in as much detail as it takes. The English language isn't efficient enough to pack a complex thought process down into a few sentences, and if you think it is, then either your understanding of English is somewhat limited or your thought process is somewhat shallow.


But this is very off-topic now, which is probably why OG likes it.

Careful how you word things. You make it seem like us GTA IV fans hate the series. In my case, that is not true at all. I love every one of the 3D games in their own way, especially SanAndreas. SA was great fun, and it had the mindset to go full-force crazy sh*t, which is the main problem with V. It didn't know to be crazy like SA or realistic like IV. But that's my two cents...
 
And if you're just talking about Official General, his avatar picture is Tommy so i think he likes Vice City as well ;)

Not at all. I never said ALL IV fans hate the series, did I? I was addressing the fact that many people have only joined the series since IV, and that causes a lot of conflict of interest between old and new fans of the series. And this topic is all about how IV was hated. I think you need to look more deeply into the context ;)

 

You are very passive aggressive, aren't you? If you can sum up how you feel in a few sentences and get right to the point, it's much faster and easier for people to discuss with you. Having to read an essay and then picking it apart to make a point on the internet (which almost always falls on deaf ears) is pretty silly. You do see that don't you?

 

And you were making it seem like most IV fans didn't like the rest of the series. "If it wasn't for all the fans who apparently don't like any other GTA now except for it". Hence why i said "You make it seem like..."

  • Official General likes this

Deji
  • Deji

    Coding like a Rockstar!

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2007
  • None
  • Contribution Award [Mods]

#75

Posted 08 July 2014 - 11:32 PM Edited by Deji, 08 July 2014 - 11:35 PM.

You are very passive aggressive, aren't you? If you can sum up how you feel in a few sentences and get right to the point, it's much faster and easier for people to discuss with you. Having to read an essay and then picking it apart to make a point on the internet (which almost always falls on deaf ears) is pretty silly. You do see that don't you?


And you're very rhetorical, aren't you?

I don't want it to be fast an easy for people to discuss with me, that's the point. Lets just call it idiot-proofing. If anyone has the patience to read my posts, I have the patience to deal with them. Anyone who thinks of it as an essay, has probably never read an essay in their life and therefore their half-brained opinion is probably going to be worthless. I should point out I'm being a bit harsher and more to the point than I'd usually be, but that's just me trying not to write an essay. Not nice, is it? Fact is, many (mostly intelligent) people appreciate my rants and can follow what I'm trying to say even if they disagree. Yet obviously, they (or me, for that matter) don't matter and all I was really doing was waiting for a guardian angel like you to come and tell me how I'm writing my posts wrong.

It's very nice of you to make a suggestion about the way I post, though. Perhaps you should go advise politicians, after all?
 

And you were making it seem like most IV fans didn't like the rest of the series. "If it wasn't for all the fans who apparently don't like any other GTA now except for it". Hence why i said "You make it seem like..."

And I was pointing out that it's not as it seems. What's the point in pulling me up on something which only seems to be what I'm saying? What's the point of then re-clarifying that you only think it seems like I'm saying that, even though I only explained why that wasn't what I was saying? Smells fishy. Smells like bias, but I don't expect you to notice it. If I was writing an essay about how V was terrible and IV was perfection, I bet you instead would have replied something like "^ The truth right here, fellers ^".

But I guess I'm wrong about that, too. Heck, logic is wrong.


Sorry if I seem passive-aggressive and short with you now, but after all, I am here to talk about Grand Theft Auto and the topic at hand, if I wanted to talk about myself, my writing style or defend myself against accusations, I'd see a psychiatrist, take an interview, or attend court. So since you're so eager to dwell off-topic to talk about me, I have to assume you're either fascinated by me or you're trying to prove something or take a side without actually putting effort in, which I can see through like glass and it doesn't impress me one bit. None of this is relevant to the topic, so every word here is wasted. You're setting a bad example of IV fandom. You do see that, don't you?

Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#76

Posted 09 July 2014 - 12:12 AM Edited by Official General, 09 July 2014 - 12:21 AM.

If you can sum up how you feel in a few sentences and get right to the point, it's much faster and easier for people to discuss with you. Having to read an essay and then picking it apart to make a point on the internet (which almost always falls on deaf ears) is pretty silly. 

 

You are sure damn right about that  :^:  :^:  :^:  :^:

 

Can you believe the guy even compared discussing a video game to a politician's speech ?? Lol this guy has lost the plot, how I can take him seriously I do not know !

 

@ Deji

 

I'm LOVIN' IT  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :cool:  :cool:  :cool:  :cool:

 

But heck, if you don't appreciate even the 3D 'era' GTA's, I don't really get what you expect at all from GTA

 

Amazing I actually agree with you on this. But If Mr Leone thinks IV is the best of them all, then it should be respected. I get and understand why he holds IV with such high regard,

  • Donut likes this

Donut
  • Donut

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2013
  • None

#77

Posted 09 July 2014 - 12:16 AM

 

You are very passive aggressive, aren't you? If you can sum up how you feel in a few sentences and get right to the point, it's much faster and easier for people to discuss with you. Having to read an essay and then picking it apart to make a point on the internet (which almost always falls on deaf ears) is pretty silly. You do see that don't you?


And you're very rhetorical, aren't you?

I don't want it to be fast an easy for people to discuss with me, that's the point. Lets just call it idiot-proofing. If anyone has the patience to read my posts, I have the patience to deal with them. Anyone who thinks of it as an essay, has probably never read an essay in their life and therefore their half-brained opinion is probably going to be worthless. I should point out I'm being a bit harsher and more to the point than I'd usually be, but that's just me trying not to write an essay. Not nice, is it? Fact is, many (mostly intelligent) people appreciate my rants and can follow what I'm trying to say even if they disagree. Yet obviously, they (or me, for that matter) don't matter and all I was really doing was waiting for a guardian angel like you to come and tell me how I'm writing my posts wrong.

It's very nice of you to make a suggestion about the way I post, though. Perhaps you should go advise politicians, after all?
 

And you were making it seem like most IV fans didn't like the rest of the series. "If it wasn't for all the fans who apparently don't like any other GTA now except for it". Hence why i said "You make it seem like..."

And I was pointing out that it's not as it seems. What's the point in pulling me up on something which only seems to be what I'm saying? What's the point of then re-clarifying that you only think it seems like I'm saying that, even though I only explained why that wasn't what I was saying? Smells fishy. Smells like bias, but I don't expect you to notice it. If I was writing an essay about how V was terrible and IV was perfection, I bet you instead would have replied something like "^ The truth right here, fellers ^".

But I guess I'm wrong about that, too. Heck, logic is wrong.


Sorry if I seem passive-aggressive and short with you now, but after all, I am here to talk about Grand Theft Auto and the topic at hand, if I wanted to talk about myself, my writing style or defend myself against accusations, I'd see a psychiatrist, take an interview, or attend court. So since you're so eager to dwell off-topic to talk about me, I have to assume you're either fascinated by me or you're trying to prove something or take a side without actually putting effort in, which I can see through like glass and it doesn't impress me one bit. None of this is relevant to the topic, so every word here is wasted. You're setting a bad example of IV fandom. You do see that, don't you?

 

I love how uppity you are because wasting your time writing this stuff makes you think you're some sort of intellectual savior. Idiot proofing? No. Ego tripping is more like it. You keep bring up this politician angle, as if it has any merit to your argument. This is not politics, you are not a politician. That quote you brought up was simply me agreeing with him, obviously it's not the flat out truth. Everyone has opinions and i strongly agreed with his, so i said it was truth. Anyone with a brain would know what i was doing. But you, you have to stroke your ego anywhere you can, so you brought it up. If i'm setting a bad example for IV fans, then i worry about the example made for V and SA fans. I love how you said all this was irrelevant, but you still wasted your time and mine by writing that post. You do see that, don't you?

 

You can go tit-for-tat for posts on end, but i don't like doing that. Have fun writing your next post, i know you will.

  • Official General likes this

Deji
  • Deji

    Coding like a Rockstar!

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2007
  • None
  • Contribution Award [Mods]

#78

Posted 09 July 2014 - 01:05 AM

Just like I knew you'd write THAT post. Hypocrisy is a bitch, aint it?

MiamiViceCity
  • MiamiViceCity

    The Harwood Butcher

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Most Obsessive Name Changer 2016 (My unofficial GTAF annual award)
    Biggest Fanboy 2013, 2014, 2015
    Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#79

Posted 09 July 2014 - 02:01 AM

 

It (GTA IV) did something different, and I could praise R* for that too, if it wasn't for all the fans who apparently don't like any other GTA now except for it.

 

Careful how you word things. You make it seem like us GTA IV fans hate the series. In my case, that is not true at all. I love every one of the 3D games in their own way, especially SanAndreas. SA was great fun, and it had the mindset to go full-force crazy sh*t, which is the main problem with V. It didn't know to be crazy like SA or realistic like IV. But that's my two cents...

 

And if you're just talking about Official General, his avatar picture is Tommy so i think he likes Vice City as well ;)

 

 

When I first joined this forum I would've considered myself a VC fanboy (hence my old username) and I still regard VC as the best GTA from the 3D era with GTA III not too far behind. I honestly can't say I love SA though. For its time it was a good game, but it was a focus I didn't particularly enjoy. It was the jack of all trades yet never mastered in anything specifically IMO.

 

GTA IV's return to more focussed gameplay like GTA III and VC is why it's my current favourite. I don't dislike GTA V, but it does suffer from a bit of an identity crisis and doesn't know whether it wants to be like SA or GTA IV pretty much like you said.

  • Official General, Lock N' Stock, Donut and 1 other like this

Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    I have moved to a new account.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India
  • Best Contributor [Gaming] 2012

#80

Posted 09 July 2014 - 02:43 PM

Lol @ everyone saying that the same people who hated IV like it now. It's quite clear they are being possessed by SOL.

 

Spoiler

  • MiamiViceCity likes this

Jioyt 123
  • Jioyt 123

    Shop Steward

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#81

Posted 09 July 2014 - 03:41 PM

I was fine with it, I welcomed the more realistic approach. Considering it was the first next-gen (at the time) GTA title, Rockstar did a fantastic job. What it lacked in content (planes, tanks, customisation e.g), was made up for with the level of detail in it's environment, physics and storyline. I never expected alot from San Andreas to return unlike those ignorant fanboys, it was obvious it was going to be a complete reboot of the series.


About the planes, off topic but whatever. Personally, i don't think ant GTA in LC should include planes. I think its kind of a tradition and to me, it feels right. Just like how in V theres planes, like in San Andreas.( and theres still as easy to blow up
  • Lock N' Stock likes this

Lock N' Stock
  • Lock N' Stock

    U WOT M8

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#82

Posted 09 July 2014 - 04:11 PM

 

I was fine with it, I welcomed the more realistic approach. Considering it was the first next-gen (at the time) GTA title, Rockstar did a fantastic job. What it lacked in content (planes, tanks, customisation e.g), was made up for with the level of detail in it's environment, physics and storyline. I never expected alot from San Andreas to return unlike those ignorant fanboys, it was obvious it was going to be a complete reboot of the series.


About the planes, off topic but whatever. Personally, i don't think ant GTA in LC should include planes. I think its kind of a tradition and to me, it feels right. Just like how in V theres planes, like in San Andreas.( and theres still as easy to blow up

 

Good point, LC only has one airport as well. Games like Saints Row give you a sh*tload of planes to fly, but it feels a bit pointless with the bigger ones since there's only one runway to land on.


Jioyt 123
  • Jioyt 123

    Shop Steward

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#83

Posted 09 July 2014 - 04:15 PM Edited by Jioyt 123, 09 July 2014 - 04:18 PM.

I know what you mean. Also, for saints row the third and four, planes don't suit those game IMO.
Kinda the same for LC, although i still think they should keep it that way, for traditional purposes

Also, after re-reading your post i just had a thought. V only has 1 proper airport, whilst the rest are airfields. At least another proper airport apart from Zandecudo would have been nice

The7thOne
  • The7thOne

    This action will have consequences...

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 May 2014
  • United-States

#84

Posted 09 July 2014 - 04:16 PM

People actually hated this game?

 

Is this real life?


Jioyt 123
  • Jioyt 123

    Shop Steward

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#85

Posted 09 July 2014 - 04:21 PM Edited by Jioyt 123, 09 July 2014 - 04:21 PM.

Dont worry the7thOne, only kids brought up on V in the short time its been out hate IV :)

Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#86

Posted 09 July 2014 - 06:48 PM Edited by TheMasterfocker, 09 July 2014 - 07:30 PM.

People actually hated this game?
 
Is this real life?


This game got ripped to shreds by people. It's the reason V is so different.


MiamiViceCity
  • MiamiViceCity

    The Harwood Butcher

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Most Obsessive Name Changer 2016 (My unofficial GTAF annual award)
    Biggest Fanboy 2013, 2014, 2015
    Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#87

Posted 10 July 2014 - 12:51 AM

Lol @ everyone saying that the same people who hated IV like it now. It's quite clear they are being possessed by SOL.

 

Spoiler

 

Remember I have the power to edit peoples' posts so you never know..

 

I was just thinking in person I actually don't know anyone who "hates" GTA IV. All of my friends thought it was a good game really.

 

It seems to be largely an internet phenomenon from what I've seen over the years.


Mr_Leone
  • Mr_Leone

    The X

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2010
  • None

#88

Posted 10 July 2014 - 12:53 AM

I think IV is a game with a cult following if that makes sense.
  • MiamiViceCity likes this

Nonpareil1983
  • Nonpareil1983

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • United-States

#89

Posted 10 July 2014 - 01:46 AM

I always loved GTA IV, for people who say I'll love V after VI comes out, trust me, I will always hate GTA V.


Mr_Leone
  • Mr_Leone

    The X

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2010
  • None

#90

Posted 10 July 2014 - 01:55 AM

Now, now. GTA V is fun. I love it for an hour or so but I get sick of it if I play longer than an hour. Much like SR3.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users