Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Business Properties In GTA V

84 replies to this topic
Cheatz/Trickz
  • Cheatz/Trickz

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2013

#61

Posted 3 weeks ago

You've put something you said in a quote box, and replied to it.

ChiroVette
  • ChiroVette

    GTA V = The Anti-Snore (IV) AKA The Snore Killer!

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2003
  • None

#62

Posted 3 weeks ago Edited by ChiroVette, 3 weeks ago.

You've put something you said in a quote box, and replied to it.

 

Because those weren't my words regarding my position. I was summarizing your position, which is why I used quotation marks. You surely knew that already. When you take my words out of context in a quote, spitting out a distorted caricature of my actual position, they become your words.


Ash_735
  • Ash_735

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2005
  • None
  • Best Newsletter 2017 [GTAF Weekly]
    Contribution Award [GTAF Weekly]
    Contribution Award [Mods]
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA] 2013
    Best Map 2013 "ViceCityStories PC Edition"

#63

Posted 3 weeks ago

And V's combat is very satisfying.

giphy.gif
giphy.gif
tenor.gif
tenor.gif?itemid=3574833

That's what you fail to see. Just because it isn't as well done as IV's, when you consider that the vast majority of V is a massive improvement over IV, its a huge victory for the series, even if some minor little feature is done better in IV.

STOP THIS, it's not just "as well done as IV's" IT'S A TERRIBLE SYSTEM IN GENERAL, previous GTA games have a better Melee system, other Open World Games have better Melee systems, Saints Row has a better Melee system, etc. This isn't a IV vs V thing, it's a general thing that in gaming, GTAV's Melee system sucks, even the best reviews of the game and those who praise it on other places say this is one area where the game is bed, etc, stop trying to be a super fanboy esquire here man, you've even said you've played Saints Row, etc, compare it to those, can you REALLY say it's satisfying compared to those games at least?

And honestly, if you DO think it's a great system, then that's it, I really can't take anything you say serious, you're a joke poster from here on out and I hope you have a lovely time turning every little thing back to IV vs V in this section of the forum, I'm out.

92b.gif
  • anthony, Cheatz/Trickz, Zello and 1 other like this

Cheatz/Trickz
  • Cheatz/Trickz

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2013

#64

Posted 3 weeks ago

Oh. Though that wasn't my position.

ChiroVette
  • ChiroVette

    GTA V = The Anti-Snore (IV) AKA The Snore Killer!

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2003
  • None

#65

Posted 3 weeks ago Edited by ChiroVette, 3 weeks ago.

 

And V's combat is very satisfying.


That's what you fail to see. Just because it isn't as well done as IV's, when you consider that the vast majority of V is a massive improvement over IV, its a huge victory for the series, even if some minor little feature is done better in IV.

STOP THIS, it's not just "as well done as IV's" IT'S A TERRIBLE SYSTEM IN GENERAL, previous GTA games have a better Melee system, other Open World Games have better Melee systems, Saints Row has a better Melee system, etc. This isn't a IV vs V thing, it's a general thing that in gaming, GTAV's Melee system sucks, even the best reviews of the game and those who praise it on other places say this is one area where the game is bed, etc, stop trying to be a super fanboy esquire here man, you've even said you've played Saints Row, etc, compare it to those, can you REALLY say it's satisfying compared to those games at least?

And honestly, if you DO think it's a great system, then that's it, I really can't take anything you say serious, you're a joke poster from here on out and I hope you have a lovely time turning every little thing back to IV vs V in this section of the forum, I'm out

 

 
LMAO you can use all the character assassinations you like, take my words out of context all you like, and attempt to spam this thread with nonsensical banners to bolster your Snore-butthurt IV butthurt. Its all good.
 
But I NEVER said V's combat system was great. I said three things about it:
 
-Hand to hand combat is of ancillary importance, at most, to a sandbox game.
-Even though it is better in IV, who cares? (see point #1)
-And that it is fine and acceptable in V, and satisfying (lol for all of the THREE minutes I spent using it in any of the MANY 100% campaigns I have done in V)
 
Your overblown, nonsensical interpretations only show that you are more interested in belligerence than discourse.
 
As far as the whole IV versus V you are whinging about, you small, fractional minority of butthurt fans, stuck in the past, are the ones that keep extolling the virtues of IV's combat system in this thread. Which, by the way, the thread isn't even about combat anyway.
 

I'm out


Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what's going to happen. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Oh. Though that wasn't my position.

 

It was kind of what you were saying, though. But even so, if you say that isn't your position, then fair enough. But you did spit it back to me completely out of context, then responded to it as if it was my position, when you knew full well it wasn't. Hence, I assigned the quote to you, since changing my meaning or context means you own the quote.


Cheatz/Trickz
  • Cheatz/Trickz

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2013

#66

Posted 3 weeks ago Edited by Cheatz/Trickz, 3 weeks ago.

SA did properties better not because they were "inexplicably tied to the story" (though that does contribute to why they are done better), but that they're overall implemented better into the game design in general instead of being relegated to the background, less developed or focused on (and SA is not even property centric like you said before). That's why I explained the gameplay benfits attached to it (the safehouses because the map was much bigger) as well as the extras you can unlock with the optional side of SA's property system (showroom, Zero's shop).

You can defend the properties of V until you're blue in the face but I've clearly explained how and why V handles them in a lackluster way. You really haven't given a good reason for why V implements them well, you've only defended against the criticisms of it with what amounts to "but in V it is ok that this is done less good".
  • Official General, anthony, Misunderstood and 1 other like this

anthony
  • anthony

    Everyone in Liberty sells their soul to the devil.

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2011
  • None

#67

Posted 3 weeks ago Edited by anthony, 3 weeks ago.

You really haven't given a good reason for why V implements them well, you've only defended against the criticisms of it with what amounts to "but in V it is ok that this is done less good".

@Chiro - Still waiting for the "in depth" of your opinions in Things GTA 5 did better than GTA 4 thread too.

And see? That's what I was talking about;

-Even though it is better in IV, who cares? (see point #1)

Not you, but don't say it like nobody in the galaxy don't give a sh*t about hand to hand combat in a GTA game.

I care, and I know lot of people do. This is not an argument.

-And that it is fine and acceptable in V, and satisfying (lol for all of the THREE minutes I spent using it in any of the MANY 100% campaigns I have done in V)

Good for you.

Saw the previous page..you still speak and present you point of view and opinions like an universal truth and facts..still unreasonable too..

It's awkward imo

Spoiler


I think thats why some people here doesn't take you really seriously..
  • Cheatz/Trickz likes this

Yinepi
  • Yinepi

    Wepwawet Wannabe

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2016
  • Egypt

#68

Posted 3 weeks ago Edited by Yinepi, 3 weeks ago.

Funny. Chiro started out trying to make a persona to mock IV fans and in doing so I think he's actually manipulated himself so much into actually thinking certain game mechanics are better in V compared to previous GTA titles and other games when objectively they're not. It's cute to be honest.

I exploit you, still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three

I'm the cult of personality

  • Official General, anthony and Cheatz/Trickz like this

thalilmythos
  • thalilmythos

    Vigilante.

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2012
  • None

#69

Posted 3 weeks ago

I would have liked at least more interaction with the properties, would have allowing entrance to the tequi lala and having a dring or 2 killed the game performance on the last generations? (which is the proper excuse for everyone for the lack of certain features) i mean, you own the damn place and the interior is there, the same could be said about that other bar on Vinewood, with the exception of it having any interior at all.

 

They should have interiors, maybe bring in a minigame or mission with the property, like, i expected to at least be able to use Franklins LS Customs on sandy shores to allow me to at least chop shop some damn cars for money, i actually expected that when i played for the first time, but it was only allowed on online, some nonsese right there.

There are the exceptions of course, like the towing sidemission, but seriously, who the hell even does towing? is there for the possibilitiy, but even the strip club is funnier.

And the money income? don't even get me started on that.

  • Algonquin Assassin, Official General, anthony and 2 others like this

ChiroVette
  • ChiroVette

    GTA V = The Anti-Snore (IV) AKA The Snore Killer!

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2003
  • None

#70

Posted 3 weeks ago


SA did properties better not because they were "inexplicably tied to the story" (though that does contribute to why they are done better), but that they're overall implemented better into the game design in general instead of being relegated to the background, less developed or focused on (and SA is not even property centric like you said before). That's why I explained the gameplay benfits attached to it (the safehouses because the map was much bigger) as well as the extras you can unlock with the optional side of SA's property system (showroom, Zero's shop).

You can defend the properties of V until you're blue in the face but I've clearly explained how and why V handles them in a lackluster way. You really haven't given a good reason for why V implements them well, you've only defended against the criticisms of it with what amounts to "but in V it is ok that this is done less good".

 
I disagree, but see your point at the same time. San Andreas is nowhere near as property-centric as VC or SA, and certainly nowhere near the Empire Building in VCS.
 
But as I said, if you analyze the properties in San Andreas, they are a huge part of the game in so many ways. No so much the Drug Assets like Robois, Hippie Shopper, and Burger Shot. But you can't really get anywhere in SA without getting heavily involved in the assets in the game. As I said, however, I do see your point. And it isn't that you are coming out of left field, because I believe that San Andreas, in many ways blows the doors off of BOTH IV and V. So if you want to argue that San Andreas is a better game than V, I would come up with things V does better, but overall tip my cap and say I think SA is better, particularly when you grade it on a ten year technology curve going from the PS2 era all the way to the end of PS3/360 and the next gen consoles.
 
Also, I would cite the same argument again, that there is so much fleshed out in V that I am just grateful for the bonus of the properties. See, to your taste, you believe that V has half assed properties, and while I disagree with that because I enjoy them, let's pretend I agreed with you. I would still say that you would probably, if you're honest, tell Rockstar "Develop them all the way or leave them out entirely!" and I would say, "Whoa! Whoa! Wait a minute, Houser! Leave them in. Yeah, anything could be improved and have more added to them, but the properties are still very good as they are. So please don't listen to Cheatz, but leave them!"
 
And that is if I agreed with you. I think the properties are fine, and a great bonus. You think that they should have been all or nothing. Either fleshed out more or left out because in your eyes, "Rockstar embarrassed themselves," right? Is that a fair statement?
 
If so, then there is no reason for you and I to keep arguing about this. I like the properties, for what I believe are good reasons, and you don't, for what you believe are good reasons.
 
Now, since I am really trying to represent both sides of this debate in order to put the argument part of it to rest, can we at some point agree to disagree? Unless, of course you think I have misrepresented your position, in which case, by all means, correct me. But it seems to me like we both understand one another's perspectives very well. We are NEVER going to agree on this. So maybe, just maybe, we can both be the bigger man simultaneously and put the argument to bed.
 
 

Funny. Chiro started out trying to make a persona to mock IV fans and in doing so I think he's actually manipulated himself so much into actually thinking certain game mechanics are better in V compared to previous GTA titles and other games when objectively they're not. It's cute to be honest.

 
Actually, you didn't read my posts. Understandable, because of how long they are, so before you continue to accuse me of stuff I never said, let me just clue you in on a few things:
 
-I already agreed that IV does combat better than V. I just made it clear that V is "good enough" for me, for the very, very, very little I ever use hand-to-hand combat in a GTA game
-V does not do properties anywhere near as extensively as VC, SA, or VCS. But that the properties are more of a cool, fun, enjoyable bonus feature or diversion.
-There are other things that IV does better than V as well
-There are MANY things that San Andreas does better than V
 
Look, I won't call you out for not wading hip-deep into my encyclopedic posts to get at those bullet points, because it would be unfair. But before you and I start getting into a fourum-pissing contest about your perception of my opinions, I felt it only fair to give you the summary since you may have misinterpreted what I was saying.
 
 

@Chiro - Still waiting for the "in depth" of your opinions in Things GTA 5 did better than GTA 4 thread too.



Sorry, I completely forgot! And it is the holidays and I got into this argument in this thread, so that one fell by the wayside. If I don't get into this in a couple of days, please prompt me in that thread to remind me as I am running around like a chicken without a head for Christmas and New Years. lol
 

Not you, but don't say it like nobody in the galaxy don't give a sh*t about hand to hand combat in a GTA game.

I care, and I know lot of people do. This is not an argument.


You are taking me out of context, which given how long my posts are, I can actually understand it, since like Yinepi you just jumped into this now, and it would be unreasonable for me to say, "BUT I ANSWERED THIS ALREADY, B*TCH!!" when the only way you would know that is if you took a vacation and spent 12 hours reading my posts in this thread.

Suffice it to say, I NEVER said nobody in the galaxy gives a sh*t about hand to hand. What I said was (and you were the one who actually taught me this in another thread, by the way!! lol ) was that IV does hand to han better than V. BUT that Rockstar intentionally made it simpler and allowed it to be less interactive, probably because they believed most fans wouldn't care that much about it. In my case, they were right. Now we have already been through the back and forth. I know YOU care about it, and so do people in this thread. I personally think Rockstar was right to not spend so much time on the hand to hand in V, and I am sure you disagree. You feel this is a weakness in V, I feel it is just a developer choice.
 
We will likely NEVER agree on this, and really only Rockstar knows if they made an administrative decision to focus on other things or just wimped out. So maybe this one, also, we can chalk up to we will never agree and just drop the argument? You don't have to keep explaining your position, and I don't have to tell you over and over that in every V save I have, I spent a total of THREE minutes in the combat, and it was in the two missions, one where Michael has to beat up Simeon and the one where  he beats up a producer.
As I said to Cheatz, is this a fair assessment?

 

Saw the previous page..you still speak and present you point of view and opinions like an universal truth and facts..still unreasonable too..
It's awkward imo


Actually I am NOT doing that at all! I am acknowledging combat is important to you and others in this thread, but giving reasons why I believe Rockstar decided to not go all out on it in V. That isn't me saying my ideas are universal. I clearly see you guys feel strongly about it and we just disagree. If anything you guys are the ones trying to make it sound like my opinions are objectively wrong and yours objectively right.

I admit that there is not right or wrong in preference to gameplay like this. The fighting is what it is in V. I enjoy it, you don't, and that's that. That is not "universal truth" but acknowledging I am expressing OPINION, which is the opposite of universal truth.
 

Therefore the properties in V are great just as they are.


No, but because they are a fun diversion.
 

I think thats why some people here doesn't take you really seriously..


Perhaps, but there is NO SHORTAGE of opinionated, stubborn posts on both sides of this debate. So lets at least be honest about that.

I am more than willing to concede that IV does some things better than IV. I never said differently

Official General
  • Official General

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#71

Posted 3 weeks ago

Funny. Chiro started out trying to make a persona to mock IV fans and in doing so I think he's actually manipulated himself so much into actually thinking certain game mechanics are better in V compared to previous GTA titles and other games when objectively they're not. It's cute to be honest.

I exploit you, still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three

I'm the cult of personality

 

:lol:  :lol: 

 

It is indeed. No, it really is. LOL !!

  • anthony likes this

Cheatz/Trickz
  • Cheatz/Trickz

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2013

#72

Posted 3 weeks ago Edited by Cheatz/Trickz, 3 weeks ago.

Right, we like and dislike the properties for what we believe to be good reasons. But looking at the reasons given for why properties are done poorly in V:

- Returns are negated by missions
- Barely connect to the story
- Can't enter them
- Recycled missions
- No in-game unlocks/rewards

And then looking at your "good" reasons for why they are done fine in V:

- You like that they are in the background/not important
- You like them as a little bonus
- You are too distracted by other features of V to care that the properties are not as developed as they were in VC or SA.


That's a lot of You" reasons. So I think i've clearly pointed out how they are in fact half-assed, and you haven't given any non-personal reasons to counter that.
  • Official General and anthony like this

Yinepi
  • Yinepi

    Wepwawet Wannabe

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2016
  • Egypt

#73

Posted 3 weeks ago Edited by Yinepi, 3 weeks ago.

I am more than willing to concede that IV does some things better than V. I never said differently

Well I admit that I don't ever recall actually reading you specifically saying that. The problem I notice is not that people have problems with your opinions and enjoyment of GTAV, but actually rather with the way you express them. Many, if not all actually, of your arguments can be summed up into:

"GTAV is better because it isn't GTAIV." You haven't, in a rational and calm manner, go into full detail about why you feel exactly certain aspects are better and try to help enlighten us into seeing it from your viewpoint. And this inability to properly express yourself has been pointed out to you before by many on this site, but you have dismissed it and instead divert the blame onto the person pointing it out. You essentially try to play the victim card.

You have expressed before that you think this problem is lack of communication, and it certainly is. A change of attitude on your part would be the first step to allowing you to express your enjoyment of GTAV without every thread you post in turning into a debate about GTAIV and GTAV with snide remarks toward your person.

  • Ash_735, Official General and anthony like this

ChiroVette
  • ChiroVette

    GTA V = The Anti-Snore (IV) AKA The Snore Killer!

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2003
  • None

#74

Posted 3 weeks ago Edited by ChiroVette, 3 weeks ago.

Right, we like and dislike the properties for what we believe to be good reasons. But looking at the reasons given for why properties are done poorly in V:

- Returns are negated by missions


I don't agree. The returns, as I delineated in a previous page, are actually somewhat respectable, and even generous from a economic perspective. in terms of percentage of investment when per week income is calculated. Not that I personally care that much about the cash I get. But the properties give decent returns. As for missions, I think it makes sense to have the player want to do "one mission" per in-game week for their collective properties. It would likely get a little cumbersome if EACH property contacted you in a week, but that isn't the case.

Plus the missions are mostly fun.
 

- Barely connect to the story


As I already stated, knowing you have a problem with this, I don't. I see them as "diversions" more than big side missions. Plus, they are there if you want them, to ignore or participate in. Being in the game is good for people like me who enjoy them and innocuous for people like you who do not. Not everything fun and diversionary in a game has to connect to the story.
 

- Can't enter them


We can get into the whole "interiors" issue, but to be quite honest, while I acknowledge the lack of interiors in IV and V is a problem for many fans, that is more of a global complaint about V than a reason to slam the businesses.

I personally could care less about interiors, but I also know many people enjoy them. That said, let's agree that Rockstar dropped the ball on interiors, particularly when modders were able to add them to the SP game. BUT that this is not really a business critique, but a general V complaint.
 

- Recycled missions


We have been through this many times. I argued that they are typical sandbox fare and IV's missions felt recycled as well, to which you replied something like "All these games make you feel like an errand boy."

Still, the missions are fun enough for the businesses, and completely optional. Plus, as I already said, the businesses and missions are meant to be diversions, not bonafide activities. So I never mind the feeling that they are very 3D-era like in their simplicity. They are still fun, optional, and diversionary.
 

- No in-game unlocks/rewards


Not sure I would consider this a legitimate complaint, though I do understand what you mean. I think that the rest of the game is so lavish in rewards, though, that perhaps, as diversions, Rockstar didn't feel that this was necessary. I can't say that I have ever messed with the businesses in this game and thought, "Gee, I wish there were more rewards." You pay money, you get money, you do some fun missions, and that's only if you decide you want to involve yourself in that.
 

And then looking at your "good" reasons for why they are done fine in V:

- You like that they are in the background/not important
- You like them as a little bonus
- You are too distracted by other features of V to care that the properties are not as developed as they were in VC or SA.


I am not distracted by anything. You are putting words in my mouth. I enjoy all the awesomeness in V and I enjoy the missions. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

That's a lot of You" reasons. So I think i've clearly pointed out how they are in fact half-assed, and you haven't given any non-personal reasons to counter that.


No, you have pointed out why you personally think they are half assed. The reasons I gave are gameplay, bonus, diversionary, and role playing. Actually, your reasons seem a lot more personal to me. You don't like them because they are much different than past asset missions. You conflate your desire to have them be a lot more integrated into the story and more cash generous with being objective, and that is flatly untrue.
 

"GTAV is better because it isn't GTAIV." You haven't, in a rational and calm manner, go into full detail about why you feel exactly certain aspects are better and try to help enlighten us into seeing it from your viewpoint. And this inability to properly express yourself has been pointed out to you before by many on this site, but you have dismissed it and instead divert the blame onto the person pointing it out. You essentially try to play the victim card.

You have expressed before that you think this problem is lack of communication, and it certainly is. A change of attitude on your part would be the first step to allowing you to express your enjoyment of GTAV without every thread you post in turning into a debate about GTAIV and GTAV with snide remarks toward your person.


Actually, its the other way around.

Most of the angry IV fans continuously rail against V "because it is not IV" more than anything else.

I actually think its a very refreshing change that, in this thread, some of the critics are citing OTHER GTA games like San Andreas, VC, and VCS. I still don't agree with their reasoning, but I do think that it is a nice break from all the "Oh, I hate V because it isn't IV!!" constancy that usually infests this forum.

As for changing attitude, I have tried, many times, but it is NEVER reciprocated. All olive branches and attempts to make peace are treated as weaknesses.

Bottom line? I believe V is a much better game in almost all ways than IV, at least all ways that count. While IV does some little detail stuff that is better. The people who disagree with me mostly believe IV is the ultimate GTA game.

I have no problem with an open dialog where opinions are treated as opinions. But that is never going to happen in this forum, from what I can see, and it is completely irrespective of my behavior, regardless of what many angry, vitriolic IV fans believe. If the guys on your side would stop INSULTING V-favoring opinions as being dumb, delusional, we might be able to both disagree and agree to disagree.

Like I said, that is never going to happen around here.

So lets just accept that and ENJOY the ride!

 

 

Edit: By the way, I am always very calm, very civil, and very rational. Even when I am being insulted, called names, and have people attacking my character because of my opinions. But lol that's part of the charm of this forum. Just don't blame me for it. I am perfectly content to agree to disagree about features, ideas, and almost everything.

 

Edit2: I have to take something I said back in a paragraph above in this post, at least in this thread. I just skimmed through this entire thread, and I was wrong about something. Actually, other than a couple of posts on this page, this entire debate, while being heated, remained VERY civil. Even the few un-civil posts were kind of funny, to be honest, and likely the result of frustration for a debate that has gone on a while and is now becoming repetitive. But I have to admit that I am very impressed with the fact that with ALL the strongly worded opinions, the discussion stayed very on topic and even somewhat respectful. A little snide on both sides, perhaps, including from me, but overall pretty civil.


Cheatz/Trickz
  • Cheatz/Trickz

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2013

#75

Posted 3 weeks ago Edited by Cheatz/Trickz, 3 weeks ago.

Not that I personally care that much about the cash I get

I think it makes sense to have the player want to do "one mission" per in-game week for their collective properties

So I never mind the feeling that they are very 3D-era like in their simplicity

I can't say that I have ever messed with the businesses in this game and thought, "Gee, I wish there were more rewards.

Still, the missions are fun enough for the businesses

You, you, you, you, you, you.

the businesses and missions are meant to be diversions

So are the Strangers. Lester's assassinations. Bounties. All far more developed than properties. Damn, even the hangouts were prioritsed more given all the dialogue.

while I acknowledge the lack of interiors in IV and V is a problem for many fans, that is more of a global complaint about V than a reason to slam the businesses

I disagree, since if any interiors should be enterable at all, it's the ones you buy. So i'd say it is legitimate because there's a blatant reason they should be enterable, they are not just random buildings to make up the world.

Rockstar didn't feel that this was necessary.

Or they just tacked them on half-heartedly? Certainly the reasons I've stated suggest this more than your own feelings on them suggesting otherwise. Who knows?

And you're right it is a personal opinion of mine that the properties are half-assed, but again look at my reasons. Regardless of my feelings towards them, these:

- Returns are negated by missions (yes, they are, don't bring up your real-life situation again as if that is even remotely comparable to a video game. If they weren't negated by the missions they'd be an efficient money maker alongside the heists and assasinations).
- Barely connect to the story
- Can't enter them
- Recycled missions
- No in-game unlocks/rewards

...are still facts, good or bad. You can't agree or disagree. All you've done is look at those and argue purely on a personal level as to why each of these is no detriment to you.
  • anthony and Yinepi like this

ChiroVette
  • ChiroVette

    GTA V = The Anti-Snore (IV) AKA The Snore Killer!

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2003
  • None

#76

Posted 3 weeks ago Edited by ChiroVette, 3 weeks ago.

You, you, you, you, you, you.


lol
 

So are the Strangers. Lester's assassinations. Bounties. All far more developed than properties. Damn, even the hangouts were prioritsed more given all the dialogue.


Ah ok I see where things are going off the rails now! We are talking about two different things! I think this is where you may be misunderstanding me. Actually, if you look at San Andreas, and happen to have a Strategy Guide, there is a section for Side Missions and a section for Diversions. I have no Earthly idea where my Brady Guide is for that game, but I can tell you that even back in the days of San Andreas, Rockstar delineated a sizable difference between bonafide side missions and Diversions. Sh*t, I wish I could find my guide, because I am not sure if they called them "side missions" but they definitely had a class of San Andreas stuff that was relegated to background importance, called Diversions.

These were things like the Girlfriends, and I believe even the Unique Jumps in San Andreas were considered Diversions. There was a bunch of other cool stuff in that class, too.

Anyway, Diversions in San Andreas were much less developed and obviously they were given a lower priority in the development of the game. They were cool features, fun enough, but could be completely or partially ignored, depending on the desires of the player. That is why I kept referring to the Properties as "Diversions." Lester's Assassination missions and Bail Bond Missions are much more fleshed out, because they are bonafide side missions (or whatever the guide called them in SA).

Friends would also be considered diversions in V, which you said you like better than the properties. The point is NOT to suggest that the properties are as well developed and fleshed out as the Bail Bond Missions, S&F's, or many other facets of the game, BUT to suggest that thinking in terms of San Andreas, they are more diversions, that are not really meant to be inextricably tied to the meat of the game the way missions and real side missions are.

Thus, the level of integration and sophistication are not really necessary.

As a side note, would I have liked the properties to be more the way you describe? Sure, absolutely. How could that possible be bad? My only assertion here is not to suggest that the properties are highly fleshed out motifs in the game, like career missions and sides, BUT that they are just adjunctive and "Diversions."

Now, I want to be clear that YOU don't have to like the businesses as I do. You certainly don't have to think they are highly fleshed out. BUT maybe you can stop making it sound like I am willing to "settle for sh*t" because I like the diversion-style that the businesses occupy as a niche in the game.
 

I disagree, since if any interiors should be enterable at all, it's the ones you buy. So i'd say it is legitimate because there's a blatant reason they should be enterable, they are not just random buildings to make up the world.


In truth, Rockstar should have fixed this in the entirety of the game the way the modders did. So while I don't agree with you that it is any worse because you purchase the properties I can't say you are wrong about feeling this way. But again, I think that for people like you, who really like interiors, this is a black mark on the whole game. Whether you think it is worse because you buy the businesses or not is, in essence, sophistry. While I could give a rat's ass about interiors, this is something I remember GTA fans clamoring for since the GTA III days. Rockstar knows this. They even have them in the game. They are just not accessible without mods, which is a little egg on Rockstar's face whether you think its worse for businesses or for the game as a whole.
 

Or they just tacked them on half-heartedly? Certainly the reasons I've stated suggest this more than your own feelings on them suggesting otherwise. Who knows?

And you're right it is a personal opinion of mine that the properties are half-assed, but again look at my reasons. Regardless of my feelings towards them, these:

- Returns are negated by missions (yes, they are, don't bring up your real-life situation again as if that is even remotely comparable to a video game. If they weren't negated by the missions they'd be an efficient money maker alongside the heists and assasinations).
- Barely connect to the story
- Can't enter them
- Recycled missions
- No in-game unlocks/rewards


My answer to all of this is above. I see the properties as nothing more than the equivalent of Diversions like the ones in San Andreas.

I don't think the game itself is worse for having them in it, AND I enjoy them as what they are. I will still stand by the belief that NOT all things in a massive game like this have to be developed equally. I think where you and I disagree most on this issue, as well as the combat, is you feel that introducing combat in V that is not as good as IV as well as assets that are not nearly as good as SA, VC, or VCS is a blight on Rockstar. Your reasoning is that "why do something only half way?" Which I understand.

But my reasoning is that halfway is better than NOT at all with diversions like properties, and with the combat, I guess it comes down to personal preference and gaming style.

I am quite sure that if I were the type of GTA'er that used combat in all the GTA games and reveled in it in IV the way you do, I would probably be pissed off, too. But to my way of thinking, the combat "does its job" and allows me to punch, kick, block, and use a little stealth.

Can we agree that we like different things without you disparaging my tastes by conflating my different desires with "a willingness to settle for stripped down crap?"

lol I think you can agree that we are both capable of being snide with one another. But if I enjoy the properties and am satisfied with the combat, that doesn't make me STUPID or "willing to accept sh*t shoveled onto my plate." It just means that I play GTA games differently than you and like different things. You and I would communicate a lot better if maybe we both knocked off that snide, condescending type of belittling crap. Not that it isn't fun! lol
 

...are still facts, good or bad. You can't agree or disagree. All you've done is look at those and argue purely on a personal level as to why each of these is no detriment to you.


Well I would say that's really all any of us can do with a videogame. I mean, if I "personally" don't care about combat to the same extent you do, then that is personal. You feeling like the game lacks because the combat is less than IV or the properties are less than SA, is also personal.

My point is there is nothing wrong with "personal" in this context. In the end, the things we LIKE and the things we DISLIKE are generally personal.

anthony
  • anthony

    Everyone in Liberty sells their soul to the devil.

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2011
  • None

#77

Posted 3 weeks ago Edited by anthony, 3 weeks ago.

You haven't, in a rational and calm manner, go into full detail about why you feel exactly certain aspects are better and try to help enlighten us into seeing it from your viewpoint. And this inability to properly express yourself has been pointed out to you before by many on this site

^
This

Seriously @Chiro stop with this story of "side", there is no side.
  • Yinepi likes this

ChiroVette
  • ChiroVette

    GTA V = The Anti-Snore (IV) AKA The Snore Killer!

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2003
  • None

#78

Posted 3 weeks ago Edited by ChiroVette, 3 weeks ago.

Seriously @Chiro stop


Request denied.
 

with this story of "side", there is no side.


There are ALWAYS sides in a debate. You are just being lazy in trying to "shut down" my perfectly valid side with petulant demands and whinging. Not about the game, BUT about how you don't personally like how I speak about the game.

I am rational. I have remained rational. I clearly delineate and articulate my opinions and expound upon my positions. If you don't like my posts, might I suggest that you simply don't read them? Problem solved.

 

A few of you guys have STOPPED arguing the facts and the topic, and you do what you do whenever you cannot repudiate my position, which is to make it personal. In other words, about how you accuse me of not being rational, when clearly all my serious discourse is.

I am NOT going to stop posting as I do, which is intrinsically rational and calm. Seriously, you know what's really funny? You ask me to be "calm" and "rational" as if I am bouncing all over the forum walls and getting upset. You are the ones getting upset with how I post, getting annoyed and mad, and you are the one given to emotional outbursts. Even in response to your combative posts, I remain calm and civil.


Yinepi
  • Yinepi

    Wepwawet Wannabe

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2016
  • Egypt

#79

Posted 3 weeks ago Edited by Yinepi, 3 weeks ago.

Chiro, when you use words like "side" in a derogatory way this is what makes people think you're being irrational. If you did indeed stop using the "side" remark, it would help toward stopping people from thinking you're being irrational.

  • anthony likes this

ChiroVette
  • ChiroVette

    GTA V = The Anti-Snore (IV) AKA The Snore Killer!

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2003
  • None

#80

Posted 3 weeks ago

Chiro, when you use words like "side" in a derogatory way this is what makes people think you're being irrational. If you did indeed stop using the "side" remark, it would help toward stopping people from thinking you're being irrational.

 

I honestly don't care what people think. I am not here to make friends. I am here to talk about GTA, and my side of the discussion is what I elucidate in response to your side. If you and others are bothered by my use of the word side to pay homage to the fact that all arguments have different sides, then perhaps you are the one being irrational.

 

All arguments have different sides to them. I assert and defend my side to refute yours, and you do the same.

 

And, perhaps most important, where, on Earth, do you get the erroneous impression that I am using the word side in a derogatory way. If anything, my use of that word in previous post was out of RESPECT that we obviously see this subject from different sides.


Yinepi
  • Yinepi

    Wepwawet Wannabe

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2016
  • Egypt

#81

Posted 3 weeks ago Edited by Yinepi, 3 weeks ago.

 

Chiro, when you use words like "side" in a derogatory way this is what makes people think you're being irrational. If you did indeed stop using the "side" remark, it would help toward stopping people from thinking you're being irrational.

 

I honestly don't care what people think. I am not here to make friends. I am here to talk about GTA, and my side of the discussion is what I elucidate in response to your side. If you and others are bothered by my use of the word side to pay homage to the fact that all arguments have different sides, then perhaps you are the one being irrational.

 

All arguments have different sides to them. I assert and defend my side to refute yours, and you do the same.

 

And, perhaps most important, where, on Earth, do you get the erroneous impression that I am using the word side in a derogatory way. If anything, my use of that word in previous post was out of RESPECT that we obviously see this subject from different sides.

 

Seriously?

Like talking to a brick wall.

  • anthony likes this

ChiroVette
  • ChiroVette

    GTA V = The Anti-Snore (IV) AKA The Snore Killer!

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2003
  • None

#82

Posted 3 weeks ago Edited by ChiroVette, 3 weeks ago.

Seriously?


Very.
 

Like talking to a brick wall.


No, you are talking to someone who doesn't agree with you and who sees things from a different side who refuses to back down just because you get pissy and tell me to. Its called civil discourse. You should try it some time. You guys who are so concentrated on "what I do" how I say it, how you don't like this, that, or the other thing about my posting style are not even close to being on topic.

 

On topic: One of the things I love about the properties because you never know what mission you are going to get when your phone rings or a text comes in!

 

Now you should feel free to chime in with your side. See? That's how this works. I just posted my side of a point, now you can post your side. :santa:


Yinepi
  • Yinepi

    Wepwawet Wannabe

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2016
  • Egypt

#83

Posted 3 weeks ago

 

Seriously?


Very.
 

Like talking to a brick wall.


No, you are talking to someone who doesn't agree with you and who sees things from a different side who refuses to back down just because you get pissy and tell me to. Its called civil discourse. You should try it some time. You guys who are so concentrated on "what I do" how I say it, how you don't like this, that, or the other thing about my posting style are not even close to being on topic.

 

On topic: One of the things I love about the properties because you never know what mission you are going to get when your phone rings or a text comes in!

 

Now you should feel free to chime in with your side. See? That's how this works. I just posted my side of a point, now you can post your side. :santa:

 

No.


ChiroVette
  • ChiroVette

    GTA V = The Anti-Snore (IV) AKA The Snore Killer!

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2003
  • None

#84

Posted 3 weeks ago Edited by ChiroVette, 3 weeks ago.

No.


See how easy that was?

You didn't have to call me names like "irrational" or "like a brick wall" or accuse me of not being calm. You just denied my suggestion to post your side in response to me posting my side.

 

Congratulations, you have expressed in one word that you still don't agree with me, but don't want to argue about it anymore. I salute you, Sir! (And, no that is not me being sarcastic.)


anthony
  • anthony

    Everyone in Liberty sells their soul to the devil.

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2011
  • None

#85

Posted 3 weeks ago Edited by anthony, 3 weeks ago.

There are ALWAYS sides in a debate

Not here at all, this is not a college or high school debat leagues, there is no team, there is not a judge and no winner.

You are just being lazy in trying to "shut down" my perfectly valid side with petulant demands and whinging. Not about the game, BUT about how you don't personally like how I speak about the game.

Using almost everytime "you side do that.." "I do that because your side.." "I wont stop because your side.." is like a excuse to act like a child since there is no side, and make you not credible about what you says, that's all. That's why I quoted the post by Yinepi.

You guys who are so concentrated on "what I do" how I say it, how you don't like this, that, or the other thing about my posting style are not even close to being on topic.

Actually this is you who twist the subject evrytime, how about you try what he said ? At long, when you have different people who told you basically the same thing, I'm myself not a fool, I would think "maybe I need to review how I express myself?".

V's fighting is good enough. Its fine. And I personally THANK GOD that Rockstar developers finished it to the level they did

The combat system in GTA 5 is good to you, fine.

than some very background, minor, and arguably inconsequential feature of a massive sandbox like V

Except that is not true, just your opinion, the same as you think GTA 5 combat system is good.

Actually, the fact that the combat is not as developed as IV is both symptomatic of why IV is such an overall pompous, unsatisfying game and why V is so much better

See ? That's not reasonable.

As:

THANKFULLY Rockstar was smart enough to realize that after their 2008 debacle, they had to do some damage control. Luckily they repaired the series with V

Then,

That isn't me saying my ideas are universal

Weird because that's how I feel everytime I read your opinions.
  • Official General and Yinepi like this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users