Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Do you think R* purposely withheld good features from V?

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
102 replies to this topic
Immigration
  • Immigration

    420 Warrior

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2012

#1

Posted 23 July 2014 - 05:31 PM

Do you think R* purposely withheld good features from V,

So they can selectively add them to future GTA Titles to create the illusion of them appearing "innovative" with each new release? 

 

Your thoughts?

 

Inb4consolelimitations

 


mariana_dm1989
  • mariana_dm1989

    Mari

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2013

#2

Posted 23 July 2014 - 05:34 PM Edited by mariana_dm1989, 23 July 2014 - 05:47 PM.

Purposely, yes. But also against their wishes. I am sure they wanted to put much more in, but could not due to system limitations of the last gen. I don't think they had a choice. Some stuff just had to be cut off for the game to run smoothly. There, i made the ever so dreaded console limitation remark.  :lol:  But it's probably true though. Just saying.

As for your suggestion of rockstar removing features so that they can add them to future titles in order to create the illusion of them appearing innovative, i have to say that would have been true if not for the fact that gta V lacks many features that were present in previous gta games? so i doubt that such features were excluded in order to be included in future titles for the purposes of innovation, because as you probably already know, the missing features in V that were present in previous titles aren't actually new by any means.

  • Katve, robban and Kafonix like this

Mr_Leone
  • Mr_Leone

    The X

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2010
  • None

#3

Posted 23 July 2014 - 05:34 PM Edited by Mr_Leone, 23 July 2014 - 05:34 PM.

I miss being able to do vigilante missions. I don't get it. If F can be an assassin, why can't he be a vigilante?
  • visionist, Heists and Kafonix like this

ROCKSTAR MANIC
  • ROCKSTAR MANIC

    The Vice City Coke Baron

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2012
  • United-States

#4

Posted 23 July 2014 - 05:43 PM

Purposely, yes. But also against their wishes. I am sure they wanted to put much more in, but could not due to system limitations of the last gen. I don't think they had a choice. Some stuff just had to be cut off for the game to run smoothly. There, i made the ever so dreaded console limitation remark.  :lol:  But it's probably true though.

Yeah Exactly, mostly I believe the limitations were a great part this game could have been more improved. But again, the game is still fine how it is right now. Constantly they are "bettering" for the community's purpose.


Immigration
  • Immigration

    420 Warrior

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2012

#5

Posted 23 July 2014 - 05:44 PM

Purposely, yes. But also against their wishes. I am sure they wanted to put much more in, but could not due to system limitations of the last gen. I don't think they had a choice. Some stuff just had to be cut off for the game to run smoothly. There, i made the ever so dreaded console limitation remark.  :lol:  But it's probably true though. Just saying.

As for your suggestion rockstar removed features so that they can add them to future titles in order to create the illusion of them appearing innovative, i have to say that would have been true if not for the fact that gta V lacks features that were present in previous gta games? so i doubt that is the reason.

But it's not console limitations at all though, IV & SA both had more features in their SP than V. And those games are well over 6+ years old

 

I miss being able to do vigilante missions. I don't get it. If F can be an assassin, why can't he be a vigilante?

R* Logic, that's why. 


Osho
  • Osho

    Old School RPG'er

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2012
  • None

#6

Posted 23 July 2014 - 05:45 PM

I don't think they'd purposely do it, other than either might be technical reasons or time constraints, and that applies to withheld even good features from the game.
It seems to me more proper to say, they are just making the features or gameplay more appealing it for a casual player than someone, like me, who prefers the prev. games more interesting and close to playing truly a GTA game, just my opinion.
  • MetalMilitia89 likes this

Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

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

#7

Posted 23 July 2014 - 05:56 PM Edited by TheMasterfocker, 23 July 2014 - 07:05 PM.

*sigh*

Another person...

Obviously, console limitations aren't the reason for EVERYTHING.

However, to say it's not a factor at all? No, that's just wrong.

Also, you can't just straight-up compare games like IV and V. It doesn't work that way.

Now, the other factors? R* not liking that feature and not wanting it in, the feature not fitting in well to the game, the feature giving trouble and not working, etc.
  • Heists likes this

fac316
  • fac316

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2012
  • None

#8

Posted 23 July 2014 - 05:58 PM

Politically Correct answer: Console Limitations. Reality: GTAO

  • Packing_Heat, visionist, sqre and 5 others like this

Mr_Leone
  • Mr_Leone

    The X

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2010
  • None

#9

Posted 23 July 2014 - 06:06 PM

GTA:O is the cancer that is killing GTA V.
  • Packing_Heat, visionist, Kalerney and 12 others like this

fefenc
  • fefenc

    All are equal no discrimination, Son of a Gun, a simple equation

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2014
  • Brazil

#10

Posted 23 July 2014 - 06:10 PM

GTA Online is rubbish, even SAMP is more funny than this limited sh*t

  • visionist, fac316 and theGTAking101 like this

Deji
  • Deji

    Coding like a Rockstar!

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

#11

Posted 23 July 2014 - 06:17 PM

Politically Correct answer: Console Limitations. Reality: GTAO

Even if it is reality, so what? It's like saying "IV would have been LOADS better if they didn't pay so much damn attention to those stupid bloody 'realistic' physics!". It's exactly like saying that. Like it or not, and many different people have many different opinions about all sorts of features in all sorts of games, GTA Online is a perfectly reasonable feature of V. If you don't like it, oh well, better luck next time. If you do like it, you shouldn't be mad that other features may have to have been glossed over for it (even though GTA Online required a separate team being assembled, thus they were developed almost independently). In fact, heck, IV had an online mode... I didn't really like IV - it's undoubtedly the dark horse of the entire series and whether or not that was a good thing is debatable, but for me it didn't do the right things that made me enjoy GTA - so I could surely blame IV:MP for my not liking GTA IV, right?

Everyone was pretty excited about GTA Online before it launched, I'm pretty sure... especially considering one of the things that propelled GTA SA's posthumous success was undoubtedly the multiplayer mods. The continued success and activity of SA-MP and MTA is pretty amazing, especially since they're both third-party tools which have no commercial promotion. And, at least how R* chose to present it, one of the core aspects of GTA Online was to help make GTA V a continually thriving game, with plenty of additional features being added for it even after the release. Even if GTA:O did make North sacrifice on single player gameplay, it's certainly not something they would have seen as being a big deal - they'd have gone by the assumption that everyone who enjoys V would enjoy GTA:O just as much, if not more - it's a pretty reasonable assumption to make, which even I had before seeing so many anti-GTAO users on this forum. But heck, GTAO is doing pretty well, even here in its relevant section, so I guess the anti-GTA users are indeed a vast minority, thus making it not matter whether GTA:O causes a sacrifice of SP gameplay, because GTA:O is presumably worth it.
  • Ss4gogeta0, Officer Ronson, Geralt of Rivia and 3 others like this

Andreas
  • Andreas

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 27 May 2012
  • Austria
  • Most Helpful [GTA] 2014
    Best Avatar 2013
    Best New Member 2012
    Contribution Award [GTA V]

#12

Posted 23 July 2014 - 06:37 PM Edited by Andreas, 23 July 2014 - 06:44 PM.

It's a given that certain features are purposely withhold by Rockstar. For example, the free DLCs very likely have content that was in the game from the beginning on, but were not available until Rockstar released the aforementioned DLCs. Hell, it's been confimed by some forum members that some files of the recent GTA Online updates were already in the game. Not to mention the number of features that are available in the online mode, but not in the singleplayer. All that is done on purpose, but it's not necessarily because of the next GTA. I doubt they have any specific plans for their next game, let alone withhold features of their current release for it.

  • Scaglietti, Xerukal, Wylight and 1 other like this

Trevorphilipjfry
  • Trevorphilipjfry

    Sandy Shores surfer

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#13

Posted 23 July 2014 - 06:45 PM

I miss being able to do vigilante missions. I don't get it. If F can be an assassin, why can't he be a vigilante?


kj2022
  • kj2022

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2011

#14

Posted 23 July 2014 - 07:01 PM

Sort of, but I can see why they left out some features. There's only so much time you can put into a game.


iam2fresh
  • iam2fresh

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2014
  • United-States

#15

Posted 23 July 2014 - 07:04 PM

though gta 5 is my fav i think gta 5 was meant to be a next-gen game its pretty obvious that console limitations and gta online is stopping this games full potential. just imagine this game if it had next-gens power it be better than sex itself.


Deji
  • Deji

    Coding like a Rockstar!

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

#16

Posted 23 July 2014 - 07:21 PM

I miss being able to do vigilante missions. I don't get it. If F can be an assassin, why can't he be a vigilante?

R* Logic, that's why.

Well, R*'s logic seems better than you guys.

Lets see, Vigilante missions were in GTA III, GTA VC, GTA SA, GTA IV, GTA LCS and GTA VCS... it's a dated idea, face it. If you miss them, go play those games. That's like saying "I miss Vice City" or "I miss drowning in water" - great! Guess what I miss? I miss assassinations in all those prior games. I miss a good, official online mode in GTA SA. I missed planes in IV and the arcade-ish feel of the 2D-3D era. I miss simplistic animations and graphics. I miss the stealth system from Splinter Cell!!! Those are OTHER GAMES, so go play those other games if you miss them so much.

However, no one seems to mention fire-fighter missions at all... which aren't present in either IV OR V... so what the hell is going on here? Is it the usual bias of IV fans? Yes, probably. When they pick the ONE thing, amidst other similar things, that is present in IV and not in V, it seems very much like bias to me. It seems like picking out a random criticism because it makes sense and is easily digestible by other people, and not actually one of their main reasons for hating V. I don't mind if they hate V, I really don't, but these half-assed nitpicks are still logically flawed as hell. It's a chicken and the egg situation... what came first? Them noticing that particular vague feature wasn't present? Or was it simply their prior dislike of V which made them have to find every small detail possible to criticise it on, simply because they feel others should hate it as much as they do? I suspect the latter with most, though they obviously won't admit it - it's just the most logical answer.

You don't have to provide a reason for not liking a game, you know. You can just not like it, and everyone will be fine with that. But pulling random reasons out of a hat each time you post makes it look like, well, you're just pulling random reasons out of a hat - most of the time, you end up picking something that has been mentioned a thousand times before, and those who like the game care as little about it as they did before. If you don't like it, fine, but stop trying to convince the people who do like it, of which there or many on this FAN FORUM, that they shouldn't like it because of X, Y and Z - or that it's R*'s fault, or that GTA has somehow derailed from its established goal. You don't sound like humans voicing actual concerns about something, you sound like robots repeating the same old crap that you've heard from somewhere else. Be original, please.
  • Ss4gogeta0, _Kindled_, Heists and 1 other like this

Scaglietti
  • Scaglietti

    Italia

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • Italy

#17

Posted 23 July 2014 - 07:25 PM

 

 

I miss being able to do vigilante missions. I don't get it. If F can be an assassin, why can't he be a vigilante?

R* Logic, that's why.

 

Well, R*'s logic seems better than you guys.

 

For the love of god just stop. Stop attacking people's opinions just because you don't agree with them, and stop sucking up to this company like you're obligated to do so. I love Rockstar, you love Rockstar, but sucking their ass isn't gonna do sh*t.

  • Packing_Heat, Zee, visionist and 2 others like this

Deji
  • Deji

    Coding like a Rockstar!

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

#18

Posted 23 July 2014 - 07:41 PM

For the love of god just stop. Stop attacking people's opinions just because you don't agree with them,

Why doesn't R*'s opinion matter? You're attacking theirs every time you criticise the game. That's fine, you have the freedom to, just as I have the freedom to criticise your criticisms... don't be a hypocrite ;)

and stop sucking up to this company like you're obligated to do so. I love Rockstar, you love Rockstar, but sucking their ass isn't gonna do sh*t.

I'm not, I never "like" (or hate, for that matter) companies. Read about my utter disapproval of franchises and logos here: http://gtaforums.com...m/?p=1065402176
I do, however, have a fondness for the North development team, within limited capacity. If you don't understand the difference between "Rockstar" (which isn't even a company name, by the way) and a development team, you should definitely stop with the whole ass sucking metaphors, as you don't even know whose ass is being sucked. It could be gods ass for all you know, and the only source of infinite knowledge and wisdom. You may refuse to suck it, but for all you know, you may be missing out!
(LOL writing that, I love insults)

But seriously, I do NOT love "Rockstar" (as in Games) - I don't like any game except the GTA series, and Lemmings, which both happen to have been developed by the same development team, though their particular members will have obviously changed quite a bit over time. Still, being a modder, having seen their code from the inside-out has given me quite an insight into them, and it's pretty interesting (although they have made some of the stupidest programming/coding mistakes ever and definitely have bad communication issues within the teams) - because of that, I don't expect anyone to appreciate the development side of things as much as I do, so I don't care about your opinions or views... the only thing I care about is what you actually decide to inflict upon everyone here, which by doing so, you're pretty much accepting any scrutiny by people just as hateful as Mr_Leone comes off as. If one is allowed to publicly post why they don't like something, I'm allowed to publicly post what I don't like about their post. It's fair game, the circle of freedom.
  • Ss4gogeta0, Officer Ronson, The Chicken Man and 1 other like this

Mr_Leone
  • Mr_Leone

    The X

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2010
  • None

#19

Posted 23 July 2014 - 07:47 PM

Okay, fine. I'm an asshole. Whatever it takes for you to stop your production of the sequel to the Great American Novel.
  • kingcs, Cutter De Blanc, Luddite and 3 others like this

Cutter De Blanc
  • Cutter De Blanc

    Cheat Activated

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2011
  • Mars

#20

Posted 23 July 2014 - 07:49 PM

This topic is distasteful to me... of course there was a purpose, I don't think it's the reason OP stipulated though.  

  • Scaglietti likes this

Choco Taco
  • Choco Taco

    .

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011

#21

Posted 23 July 2014 - 07:52 PM

 

 

 

 



Lets see, Vigilante missions were in GTA III, GTA VC, GTA SA, GTA IV, GTA LCS and GTA VCS... it's a dated idea, face it. 

 

 

Vigilante was in all of those games because it was fun and it was something to do after you completed the story.  GTA V lacks fun things to do after you finish the story and vigilante missions would extend the single player experience.  However, that's not in the best interest of Rockstar.  They want you to move on to online so they can make more money.  

  • B Dawg, fac316 and matajuegos01 like this

Deji
  • Deji

    Coding like a Rockstar!

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

#22

Posted 23 July 2014 - 08:14 PM

They want you to move on to online so they can make more money.

Well DUH. That's the reason any company does anything, ever. The question is, is it worth it? The answer to that is subjective - thus it's still no good reason to scrutinise the game or company. People are mostly annoyed about these (very optional) "cash cards" (which appear to make it ALMOST a "Freemium" style service, but not quite) - but that's only because the intention is in-your-face. Few seem to mind having extra money taken from them, as long as the ones taking it do it as discreetly as possible - otherwise they complain, merely because they can see it. But for me, that's preferable. I much prefer an in-your-face money making technique than the many possible discreet techniques (like f*cking Steam pull ALL THE TIME) - and they NEED that money to keep the Online services running, remember - if you don't want to use Online, then you don't ever even have to pay for these stupid "cash cards" - and yes, I think these cash cards are stupid, same as I think many other games which expect you to pay for "special" things are stupid, which is why I simply don't buy them and prefer the added challenge of competing against the losers dumb enough to hand over money for something so immaterial.

Anyway, the Vigilante missions are DEFINITELY dated. It costs them a lot more money to work on brand new features than to use the same old code they used on a bunch of other games, make a few tweaks, and expect it to still be a valid part of the money you have to spend on the game. III's submissions were praised - but those same submissions got less and less attention over the next 5 games. Why? Because barely anyone is interested in playing the exact same systematic things they played in the last games. Definitely the biggest annoyance of re-playing the damn 3D-era games is redoing the very repetitive side-missions, which alone take up meaningless hours of game-play. Still, they were indeed fun features and "extended" the gameplay, but they stopped being an extension a long time ago, and started seeming like a lazy way to resell the same idea over and over again. Out with the old, in with the new. No time for nostalgia when they're aiming for revolutionary.
  • Ss4gogeta0 likes this

matajuegos01
  • matajuegos01

    Stalker

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 13 Dec 2013
  • None

#23

Posted 23 July 2014 - 08:29 PM

 

They want you to move on to online so they can make more money.

Well DUH. That's the reason any company does anything, ever. The question is, is it worth it? The answer to that is subjective - thus it's still no good reason to scrutinise the game or company. People are mostly annoyed about these (very optional) "cash cards" (which appear to make it ALMOST a "Freemium" style service, but not quite) - but that's only because the intention is in-your-face. Few seem to mind having extra money taken from them, as long as the ones taking it do it as discreetly as possible - otherwise they complain, merely because they can see it. But for me, that's preferable. I much prefer an in-your-face money making technique than the many possible discreet techniques (like f*cking Steam pull ALL THE TIME) - and they NEED that money to keep the Online services running, remember - if you don't want to use Online, then you don't ever even have to pay for these stupid "cash cards" - and yes, I think these cash cards are stupid, same as I think many other games which expect you to pay for "special" things are stupid, which is why I simply don't buy them and prefer the added challenge of competing against the losers dumb enough to hand over money for something so immaterial.

Anyway, the Vigilante missions are DEFINITELY dated. It costs them a lot more money to work on brand new features than to use the same old code they used on a bunch of other games, make a few tweaks, and expect it to still be a valid part of the money you have to spend on the game. III's submissions were praised - but those same submissions got less and less attention over the next 5 games. Why? Because barely anyone is interested in playing the exact same systematic things they played in the last games. Definitely the biggest annoyance of re-playing the damn 3D-era games is redoing the very repetitive side-missions, which alone take up meaningless hours of game-play. Still, they were indeed fun features and "extended" the gameplay, but they stopped being an extension a long time ago, and started seeming like a lazy way to resell the same idea over and over again. Out with the old, in with the new. No time for nostalgia when they're aiming for revolutionary.

 

No time for nostalgia when they're aiming for the revolutionary? For f*ck's sake. Even if these features were dated they would be a very welcomed addition to the game, if those were included the game wouldn't feel as empty as it does.

  • Zee, B Dawg and fac316 like this

Scaglietti
  • Scaglietti

    Italia

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • Italy

#24

Posted 23 July 2014 - 08:37 PM

This topic is distasteful to me... of course there was a purpose, I don't think it's the reason OP stipulated though.  

A lot of topics are becoming distasteful today it seems. I can't go to any debate topic without one of those annoying fanboys.

  • Zee, kingcs, Cutter De Blanc and 3 others like this

DonMichaelCorleone
  • DonMichaelCorleone

    GTA SA>GTA 4>GTA V End of discussion.

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2013
  • None

#25

Posted 23 July 2014 - 08:43 PM

Yes.but some features cut from beta version will never be available as dlc i think.


Choco Taco
  • Choco Taco

    .

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011

#26

Posted 23 July 2014 - 09:58 PM

Out with the old, in with the new. No time for nostalgia when they're aiming for revolutionary.

 

 

If they were aiming for revolutionary, they missed their target.

  • Zee, visionist, B Dawg and 7 others like this

Trevorphilipjfry
  • Trevorphilipjfry

    Sandy Shores surfer

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#27

Posted 23 July 2014 - 10:12 PM

Where were the pimping, and drug side missions found in the code, that better come back in the DLC. the game really needs external things to ^do out of the story
  • visionist, kingcs, Luddite and 2 others like this

Red XIII
  • Red XIII

    British and Proud!

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2012

#28

Posted 23 July 2014 - 10:25 PM

Yeah that's exactly what they do. Do you not understand the pressure that comes with a budget of nearly 200 million? Yeah they leave room for improvement for the next instalment but no way are they creating an illusion of being innovative, they ARE innovative, I cant even comprehend how they manage to develop games of their quality. 

  • Heists likes this

Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

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

#29

Posted 23 July 2014 - 10:32 PM

Where were the pimping, and drug side missions found in the code, that better come back in the DLC. the game really needs external things to ^do out of the story


There's many reasons content is cut. Some of those reasons can prevent features from coming back.

Wylight
  • Wylight

    GTA4Life!

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2013
  • None

#30

Posted 23 July 2014 - 10:45 PM Edited by Skizzo45, 23 July 2014 - 10:47 PM.

Of course they did, they did it for two reasons:

 

1 - To give it to f*ckin GTA O so that fans would feel forced to play it to experience the extra content. Even though GTA O is a f*ckin travesty and most of the veteran GTA players hate it for legitimate reasons. You play as mute ugly-ass characters that when you look at them, you can't help but wanna slap the TV , that's how ugly they are. The whole game is dumped down, it lacks life of all sorts, the physics and car damage are even worse in Online and it's a grindy experience, just totally against what most people would want from a GTA game. It's like Ferrari would try to sell wheel chairs to their costumers, they don't want that, they want fast and beautiful sports cars!!!

 

2 - To keep it for DLC, as simple as that.

 

There is evidence that a lot of SA content was cut from GTA V, that includes stadium events, a combine harvester, gang wars/drug wars, burglary, restaurants including drive-thrus, basketball, gym workout and a few more. If they really cut all that then I can't help but question Rockstar North's staff's mental capabilities.

It actually looks like they purposely cut things that everybody wanted to see coming back and instead they looked for things nobody ever wanted to see in a GTA game.

  • B Dawg, Luddite and theGTAking101 like this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users