Search the Community

But they did. GTA VI could only be worse if they go with Saints Row driving. I don't think GTA VI could be worse unless they copy GTA V and put it on a smaller map.

Tell that to Fallout 4. And Witcher 3 And Just Cause 2 and 3. And Saints Row 1, 2, 3, and 4! And most Rachet & Clank games And all the Uncharted titles Yeah, no devs care about single player anymore.

This thread question is based wholly on a misconception. The problem with it is that Rockstar is a developer who has millions of customers and they need to try and make as many people as possible happy, which translates into more sales and greater profits. Where things become problematic, however, is that too many people want too many different and often conflicting things from the same game. You see the argument in the driving thread over realistic physics versus wild arcade physics. Many GTA fans want a game like GTA IV, which is realistic and intentionally restrictive and offers the gamer the perception of being a real life criminal in a real life criminal empire. Others want the opposite, and prefer varying degrees of "over the top" gameplay and physics. To complicate matters more, even realism versus over the top are not static concepts fashioned in black and white. There are about a hundred shades of grey in both extremes. So how much realism? How much over the top? Are jet packs good? Are they too much? Should driving be more realistic like IV or should you be able to climb mountains in million dollar sports car like you can in V? Should there be police bribes? Should Pay 'n' Sprays return? Should the cops be easier to handle so that you can rampage through the city for hours on end like you could in San Andreas? Or is it better that you can't face off against the law for those old school rampages? Should GTA try to compete with Saints Row and add aliens and superowers? lol Should online be the major focus moving forward, or should more attention be paid to SP? How much clothing should there be in clothes stores? How much vehicle customizing? More garage space? Less? To say that "Rockstar isn't giving us what we want" is a red herring. There are far too many conflicting requests from this huge GTA customer-base to expect any one of us to get everything we want from a GTA game.

To me, R* never cared about the storyline, and characther and whole story arc were "disposable" long before the jump to the HD era. GTA III practically ditched the mafia storyline after you arrive in Staunton. The whole "auntie poulet" in VC is a big "WTF" moment that seems totally disconnected from the rest of the game, and we never find out what happened. Then there was San andreas: half of the cast of VC was there for no reason (other than to "retcon" the VC finale), and guest star from III where there too just to mock the original character (salvatore was paranoid but it has a certain aura, now it's just paranoid and jealous; Catalina was a badass, now a BDSM psychotic nymphomaniac). GTA LCS had no problem killing miguel twice and FEEDING Avery to a (cannibalistic) Donald love R* isn't on the Saints row level (where they actively MOCK the players who wants to know the fate of past charachters), but the same R* has done soft "reboots" since GTA III at least, caring less about the storyline and more about the game. So stomping on jhonny isn't anything new... it has been this way since 2001 You know, this is actually the best argument I have read against my position in 7.5 years, particularly the part I underlined and color-changed above. It never occurred to me before reading your post that it is just possible that the incredible "importance" of GTA lore, canon, and the characters from the PS2 GTA era, while absolutely present more so than now, may in fact have been a fan-invention and not anything brought about intentionally by Rockstar. Yes, people cared a great deal about all of those PS2 era characters, and a far sight more than GTA fans care about the current cast of characters and canon. And I think this is something Rockstar ought consider, but I think you are making a very sound point, because while we as a fanbase cared a great deal more about all of that in the PS2 era characters, maybe that really is on us and not on Rockstar.

I said the principle is the same, because it is. Fairness is a different discussion, as is emotional investment to characters and the type of storytelling. What if there was somebody out there who played GTA1 and got so invested in it that he was mortified to discover that GTA3 featured none of his favourite locales? Of course, that's just hypothetical and very unlikely but if you want to preach fairness, you have to actually...be fair. I don't see the 3D era being rebooted as a mistake, I see it as a necessary step to creating a more grounded, realistic and believable story (the precise goal of IV) without being held down by the practicalities of previous works, such as the city design and the general "gamey" or "arcadey" nature of those GTA games (and other games in general due to the technology available). It doesn't matter if you personally don't care about the characters of the IV era, and that same principle applies to those who don't really care about characters from the 3D era, like me. I love those games, but when IV came out, I enjoyed that instead and forgot about SA immediately. That said, your sentiment of not caring because you don't want to be disappointed if they reboot the series again, is completely valid. I just don't share it. Also, there's plenty of investment into the GTA IV story arc (such as the Roman/Kate ending, where Niko is, where Packie went after TBoGT etc) so you are entirely wrong about that. Have you not seen the sh*tstorm that Johnny's death stirred up? Anyway, if they decided to reboot the series once again and completely redesign Liberty City, it will bother me more than it did when they scrapped the 3D era, because the world of IV was so much more real to me than any previous GTA. I still disagree, and I am certainly not "entirely wrong" about anything. That's just your opinion. The fact is that I am not the only one who isn't anywhere near as "invested" in the stories and characters of IV and V. You can see that as a prevailing theme wherever the games are spoken about. Its ALWAYS about gameplay, graphics, the quality if the writing, and the momentary interest in the story. But very few people when discussing the latest GTA games have anywhere near the same devotion to the story, characters, and canon of these new games than they did back in the day with III, SA, and VC. That is an undisputed fact. I may have cared more about Roman, Kate, and company, but I was never able to "trust" Rockstar enough to allow myself to become invested in their fates, knowing that they would be summarily flushed down the toiled the moment Rockstar decided to reboot again. And it is far from just me. You just DO NOT find anywhere near the same level of fanatical devotion to the characters and canon of the current games anywhere, and I believe that unconsciously or consciously people are reticent to invest themselves too much the way they did in the PS2 era of games. I was the GTA mod for all the forums back in the day on a site called Neoseeker, that used to have a massive GTA community. Every other thread in the GTA forum was speculation about Ray, Catalina (could she maybe have survived?) Donald Love, Salvatore's sons, and many, many other characters. In Vice City, everyone clamored to know what would happen to Tommy, Ken, Lovefist, Candy Suxx, Mercedes, Cortez, and on and on. Same thing for San Andreas. And it wasn't just that site, either. This site was also a hotbed of desperation to try and figure out what was going on with the PS2 era characters. This gen, people care to a very limited, reserved, laid back way. Trevor killed Johnny? Oh well, pass the mashed potatoes. Oh, Franklin can order the deaths of Trevor or Michael? Wow that's just totally.....meh. And it isn't because these characters suck or are inferior to the PS2 era characters. They aren't. In fact, I would argue they are in many ways more intricately written and fleshed out. Yet nobody seems to really care that much. If Trevor had stamped in Niko's head instead of Johnny's, I think people would have been like, "Oh well, cool scene. What's next?" I can assure you that in the PS2 era if CJ had executed (with a particularly gory cut scene!) Tommy, people would have been up in arms. But the whole GTA universe now has a very "disposable feel" to it. We know that Rockstar will flush this cast and canon down the toilet when the mood strikes them, which it will, and then whatever comes next will be the "reboot." So people only seem to care emotionally about the actual games, and their attachment to the characters, whether Roman (also who cares) or Michelle or Kate (again, who cares?) in the most transient way. People are in it now for the gameplay, and as far as storyline, "for the moment" not the long haul. I promise you this: 15 years from now, nobody is going to be talking about Niko or Roman or Michael or Trevor or Franklin or Packie or Lester. But people are still talking about Donald Love, Fido, Tommy, CJ, etc. To me, R* never cared about the storyline, and characther and whole story arc were "disposable" long before the jump to the HD era. GTA III practically ditched the mafia storyline after you arrive in Staunton. The whole "auntie poulet" in VC is a big "WTF" moment that seems totally disconnected from the rest of the game, and we never find out what happened. Then there was San andreas: half of the cast of VC was there for no reason (other than to "retcon" the VC finale), and guest star from III where there too just to mock the original character (salvatore was paranoid but it has a certain aura, now it's just paranoid and jealous; Catalina was a badass, now a BDSM psychotic nymphomaniac). GTA LCS had no problem killing miguel twice and FEEDING Avery to a (cannibalistic) Donald love R* isn't on the Saints row level (where they actively MOCK the players who wants to know the fate of past charachters), but the same R* has done soft "reboots" since GTA III at least, caring less about the storyline and more about the game. So stomping on jhonny isn't anything new... it has been this way since 2001

This is why I'm spending time with characters, doing side missions and such, you actually get the full and enjoyable experience vs the Story Mode which gets rushed right around he "Trevor Finds Out Brad Is Dead" segment. I honestly believe that anyone who rushes through the storyline will miss the detail and intricacies of the "full story." I have the feeling that Rockstar expected people to balance side missions and collections with regular career missions in order to bolster the story. There are just too many side storyline arcs with all of the optional quests that all weave intimately into the main storyline to be dismissed. Rockstar may have made a mistake in this regard. Volition has a Respect system in Saints Row games, 1 through 3. Basically you have to do side missions to at least some extent to open up the ability to advance the main story. This forced people into experiencing the mini-stories of the side missions. Though it is not nearly as important in that series as it would be in GTA. Because Rockstar really connected all the side quests to the main story. I think that Rockstar wanted people to have the freedom to either blow through the story with minimal side missions (like the first Lester Assassination mission, which is required to progress the story) or to experience the rich interplay of all the elements and various subplots and tangential story arcs. For me, it was no issue, and the game seems quite long and full, because my playing style in sandbox games is to always do all available side quests first before progressing the missions. But I could totally see how people that concentrate on the main story can feel a little short-changed. While i agree, the issue also lies in the three protag system. You can't really flesh out three developed characters in 74 missions, especially when half of them are f.i.b bitch slap quest

This is why I'm spending time with characters, doing side missions and such, you actually get the full and enjoyable experience vs the Story Mode which gets rushed right around he "Trevor Finds Out Brad Is Dead" segment. I honestly believe that anyone who rushes through the storyline will miss the detail and intricacies of the "full story." I have the feeling that Rockstar expected people to balance side missions and collections with regular career missions in order to bolster the story. There are just too many side storyline arcs with all of the optional quests that all weave intimately into the main storyline to be dismissed. Rockstar may have made a mistake in this regard. Volition has a Respect system in Saints Row games, 1 through 3. Basically you have to do side missions to at least some extent to open up the ability to advance the main story. This forced people into experiencing the mini-stories of the side missions. Though it is not nearly as important in that series as it would be in GTA. Because Rockstar really connected all the side quests to the main story. I think that Rockstar wanted people to have the freedom to either blow through the story with minimal side missions (like the first Lester Assassination mission, which is required to progress the story) or to experience the rich interplay of all the elements and various subplots and tangential story arcs. For me, it was no issue, and the game seems quite long and full, because my playing style in sandbox games is to always do all available side quests first before progressing the missions. But I could totally see how people that concentrate on the main story can feel a little short-changed.

Same here. I have never enjoyed any of the many zombie games I have seen. Then again, I am not a horror movie buff. I think that zombie games and zombie DLC's would appeal to people who like horror movies. Saints Row 3 had zombies in it. It didn't ruin the game or anything and at least it was a somewhat innocuous addition.

Ok so I just got GTA V and after a day of installing and downloading an 8 gig patch im finally able to play. The game freezes for 1 second then plays for 1 second (continuously).I can run other games on ultra settings at 50 fps like Saints row IV or Far cry 3 and FPS is not the issue Here is a video of my problem https://vid.me/V0OoIt looks like buffering lag when you load a youtube video but thats actually what I see in game(thats how I can best describe it) Yes I have the latest drivers and have the game running in safe and windowed mode but the problem persists Can anyone help? I have a I-5 Core 2400 3.1ghz GTX 750 TI 2gig GDDR5 (new) windows 7 450watt PSU (if this matters)

Ok so I just got GTA V and after a day of installing and downloading an 8 gig patch im finally able to play. The game freezes for 1 second then plays for 1 second (continuously).I can run other games on ultra settings at 50 fps like Saints row IV or Far cry 3 and FPS is not the issue Here is a video of my problem https://vid.me/V0OoIt looks like buffering lag when you load a youtube video but thats actually what I see in game(thats how I can best describe it) Yes I have the latest drivers and have the game running in safe and windowed mode but the problem persists Can anyone help? I have a I-5 Core 2400 3.1ghz GTX 750 TI 2gig GDDR5 (new) windows 7 450watt PSU (if this matters)

yeah we'll see. if the dlc stuff comes somewhere start 2016 should i recharge PS Plus or pay for the DLC sh*t? btw the guys at saints row wanted to charge you 15 bucks for a game that was mostly sidemissions, and it crushes the contiunity and the canon side of possibilites of what could happen later.

There is a prevailing sense of condescending elitism in developers today. For some reason, most devs feel that "rewarding" the gamer for doing menial tasks in the game is somehow sacrilegious. I think that the pomposity inherent in developer mindset is that gamers should simply be happy to "do it for the sake of doing it" and that rewarding them would be like giving candy to a baby or something. Rockstar is particularly notorious for this. GTA III had no reward at all for 100% completion, not even so much as a little pop up window congratulating you. lol Nothing! Strangely, though, they rewarded you for everything else, whether jumps, Packages, Rampages, Vigilante missions, and on and on. Vice City and San Andreas likewise had amazing rewards for accomplishing in-game milestones like Packages, R3 missions, and other asset related rewards. Rockstar is not the only one either. Those games also gave generous 100% completion rewards. Many devs seem truly stingy with rewards, and act as if they believe that they are Gods atop Mount Olympus bestowing small favors upon their worshipers for their prayers and supplication. I think that devs in many companies see in-game rewards as if they violate some fundamental code of gaming ethics or something. That's one of the things I love about Volition, Say what you want about Saints Row games, but that is a series that really knows how to reward gamers for their accomplishments. I remember playing SR's 2 through IV and it always amazed me how lavishly gamers are rewarded for nothing more than practically spitting on the sidewalk. I think one problem for Rockstar devs is that they have this paradigm of realism that they just refuse to stray too far from. Though I admit GTA V really pushes a lot of physics rules. But it is possible that "getting rewarded" for doing in game stuff would offend the realism sensibilities of these devs or something.

I think that a better comparison between the two franchises would be Just Cause 2 Versus GTA V. I say this because I am a huge fan of both games for very different reasons. Honestly, I was looking forward to JC3 for 5 years! I had it pre-ordered along with the Season Pass (XL package) and thankfully because bought it from Steam I was able to get a full refund for my $76.00 USD. I played it for 2 hours, and while I think the wingsuit and all the explosions are awesome, the game itself is inferior to JC2 in far too many ways. Right now, my three current favorite games to play are JC2, GTA V and Saints Row IV.

I think this is actually a very fair point. The top down games are absolutely, 100%, the quintessential GTA experience. III jumped the shark, the ocean, went all the way around the world and arrived exactly where it started, it was such a revolution and such a change of the formula. Despite it being pretty much the same. They are the purest form of GTA, because you can complete the entire thing without doing a single mission beyond the intro, just by running people over and selling cars, just by being a sociopath lunatic with a gun and some hot-wiring skills. That's how I beat it, the first time around. So if we're going to dig deep down into the GTA experience from the original game, it's nothing more than driving around randomly and blowing sh*t up. There are no minigames, there are no strangers and freaks, there are no vigilante missions. But III, really, changed absolutely everything. It introduced its biggest star - the world. It stopped being quite so much about just being a criminal in a world, and started being more cinematic, with cut scenes and deeper characters. If you take the very core of the top down game, you can say that all subsequent games are very much still providing the same core experience as the progenitor. But that, obviously, is a very unfair and pointless comparison, isn't it? Even though all of the subsequent games let you drive like a dick and shoot cops in the face. I'm glad V took some risks. I didn't like all of them, as I've said a million times, the story is weak, the characters are weak and the length of the game is unsatisfying. If it hadn't taken those risks, and had just given us the same as we'd had in any of the predecessors, or had crammed in all of the features from previous games, it could have been an absolute mess of excessive content and confusion, like a Saints Row game. I'm glad it gave us a streamlined experience and I'm glad it didn't appeal to everyone. A boring crowd-pleaser that offers nothing to set it apart would have been, well, boring. Does that contribute to the omg-drama death of Single Player? Well, no. Because single player hasn't died. It's still there, it's still a good game, if not a great game, and still a solid GTA game. Loads of people get a lot of fun out of the Editor/Creator modes and find new ways to enjoy the game, some replay the story as they enjoy the missions, some are playing it to try and find the secrets in the secrets in the secrets, some... well, some are clearly still forcing themselves to play a game they either never enjoyed or lost interest in, presumably to find more things to complain about (for more information, look up Sadism and Masochism - the masochistic tendency comes from enduring something they don't enjoy, the sadism comes from coming on here and bleating the same complaints or new, completely trivial complaints, when they punch in) 2 years down the line. For all of these people, GTA V's SP mode is very much alive. Here's the issues, as I see them, that are fueling this silly topic, still: - People feel hurt and betrayed by Rockstar by, seemingly, cancelling DLC in favour of supporting Online. Fair enough. It'd be great to get new content, I agree on that, but hey, it's not the end of the world if a game doesn't get an expansion. III didn't have an expansion. VC didn't. San An didn't. The holy trinity LET. YOU. DOWN. Nah, of course it didn't. That's not how it was back then, DLC wasn't really a thing, not like it is now. - Because of a precedent set by ONE game in the franchise, DLC is now expected. Because we had the episodes and because of the way games generally are today, everyone seems to expect that DLC is a given, and that it is an insult if it's not offered. That's silly, isn't it? Just because we had DLC once doesn't mean we absolutely must have it again - and if you think that way, congratulations, you actually are one of those self-entitled gamers that people talk about. - People feel Rockstar OWE them DLC. Why do they owe anyone anything? You bought a game, you got a game. The end. Your money that you gave in exchange for that game entitled you to that game and nothing else. Just because you bought a game doesn't mean you should get anything extra, whether you're prepared to pay for that extra or not. - People feel like Rockstar have promised them something by saying something once in an announcement for something else. Yes, this again. No, they did not make any promises. It really was a casual mention. People seem to have taken this as word from God that there is going to be DLC and Rockstar be damned if they don't hurry up and give it to us. No. No, there were no promises. There was no stone tablet carved with the legend that DLC was coming any time, let alone any time soon. So anyone that is genuinely upset about the possible cancellation of a DLC that was never officially announced, don't be. You haven't been lied to. They just said something they might not have meant to. Or, maybe, they were just putting that tiny seed of hope in our mind early, in the hope that we might actually have a little bit of patience and be prepared to wait for it. (Tough luck, Rockstar, people around here can't possibly wait!) - People are not playing other games. They expect to be able to play the same game, endlessly, forever and get the same experience from it every time they play. That's quite a sad thought, isn't it? Only really being able to play one or two games, forever and ever and ever... f*ck that noise. I want as many games as possible, as many experiences as possible. I don't expect any game to be playable over and over for years. Some turn out that way, but it's not something you should expect from a game. Go and buy something you're unfamiliar with, play something new and different! Don't rely on the same thing forever, that's... well, boring.

It isn't even so much driving without thinking of consequences, but I will agree that's definitely part of it. For me, at least, the driving in V feels more like the driving in Burnout Paradise or a Saint's Row game. Now I totally get why this wouldn't appeal to some, obviously yourself included. Because you want to feel more "consequence" and a sense of having to work at the driving more. That's perfectly fair. Anyone who would try to disparage your point of view about this is an idiot. For me, I kind of like games that feel freer and less restricted. And IV's driving restricts you to having to really drive a lot more carefully. I will say this about IV: I was able to spank the AI opponents in all of the races (I think they were Brucie's races? But I am not sure) and beating them was incredibly easy. The reason is that while I hated the driving in the game, Rockstar was incredibly fair! Meaning that the AI cars would slide all over the road and you could just crush them in all the races by driving more carefully. I remember on my playthrough in the game, there was one thing I did enjoy. I made a little challenge for myself which basically consisted of doing every single race, winning them all first try, and using the same Comet without once visiting the auto repair shop. If I remember right, I think there were 8 races? And because I drove carefully, I was able to beat all of them in a row without the same vehicle and no repair. What little time I did spend online, I did races and I actually did very well because, as I said, most people playing the game tried to drive at breakneck speeds and crashed into everything. What I figured out in IV was that (at least it seemed to me, anyway) the cars were way overpowered for the handling. What I mean by this was that all you had to do to keep GTA IV's faster cars under control was avoid top speeds, often even on straightaways where even a little bump could slide you out. Now to me, that's no fun at all. But many people argue that in a very real sense, GTA IV was created as not just a sandbox game, but a "Sandbox Crime Sim." So if you take that idea into consideration, then regardless of how much I didn't like the driving, the physics made sense for that reality.

The problem with microtransactions in a premium game (by that I mean a game you have to buy outright at full retail price or whatever its on sale for) is that adding microtransactions into the game is essentially double-dipping. Companies get away with it by offering DLC, but that's a little different, because DLC is add-on content that is hopefully produced later. I say hopefully, because I think we all have a problem with "Disc Locked Content." Anyway, Freemium game devs can ostensibly get away with microtransactions in the game because they don't charge you to play the game. Its "free to download" and in most cases, like Spider-Man Unlimited, Subway Surfers, various Temple Run games, and many others, you don't need the IAP/microtransactions to get good and to compete. My feeling about adding microtransactions to the SP part of a game like GTA, where you are paying full price, is that if they are going to do it then they need to fundamentally change the entire paradigm. Meaning in the case of most IAP/microtransactions, the actual content is absurdly overpriced and you can easily spend a hundred bucks (USD) and get almost nothing for your money. If they are going to add microtransactions to premium (not freemium!) SP components of games, then they have to make the packages MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more attractive than the online IAP counterparts. For instance, since there is no online leaderboard for single player, maybe they could add convenience-IAP to the game, particularly for people who have played the game several times before. I could get on board, for instance, and using GTA V as an example, if they offered the following microtransactions: (DIsclaimer: NONE of these I am suggesting will ever happen, but this would be IAP I would like to see) -Startup Funds - Pay $1.99 USD and all three of your SP characters (Franklin, Trevor, and Michael) start out with ten million dollars in their bank account at the beginning of any future saves. -Cell phone notoriety wipe with cool-down period - Pay .99 cents and you can use your cell phone to call and bribe the police commissioner, which costs you $1,000.00 in game funds. This would require a 5 hours in game (ten minute) cool-down period to use again. -Homeys deliver you ANY vehicle you own (similar to Saints Row games). This could also cost .99 cents and be available forever in your game once purchased. -Add 200 police bribes into the game spread out over the map, with an accompanying downloadable map as a .pdf or .gif file. This could cost, say $4.99 USD. But each bribe would reduce your wanted level by ONE star and when eating a bribe, it, too, would have a cool-down period similar to San Andreas or VC. -More garages to store cars so you can actually have a car collection for each character instead of being limited to 6. A 12 car garage given to each of your three characters could cost, say $1.99 -Forever discount of 50% off of anything you order online (cars, bicycles, motorcycles, boats, planes, etc.). This could cost .99 cents -"Wall Street Entrepreneur Package" that basically beefs up payouts for stock investments and increases your chances of making money on stocks. Or, better yet, with this package, costing say .99 cents, you get a broker who every in game day or two phones you with a stock tip and you can then call him back, bringing up a menu, giving you the ability to click on how much you want to invest with your broker. So for these "trades" you could bypass the Internet stock market entirely and let your high end, elite, Wall Street broker handle it. -DLC that adds huge upgrades to both your health and armor. This would preferably be something you can toggle on and off so as not to break the main missions! I say this because the missions in this game are very well crafted to be enjoyably challenging. I would personally find it boring if I purchased this upgrade and went into a mission with 5 times the resiliency of both my health and armor, but that would obviously be up to the individual. What I would mostly use this for, in conjunction with the police bribes I suggested, would be to create my own homemade rampages through the street! I would toggle it off during missions because then the game would be ridiculously easy for me and no fun at all. This could cost, say $1.99. -Adding Nitrous to Los Santos Custom's vehicle menu - .50 cents -Ripping off Just Cause 2 here: Adding thrusters to your parachutes lol .50 cents and always have this available in the Ammunations parachute menu. -Military Vehicles Pack - Adds a Tank, Attack Chopper, P-988 Laser (Fighter Jet), Barracks OL. and all other military vehicles to the appropriate garages, helipads, docks, and hangars of all three playable characters. This could be $1.99. -Police and Military uniforms added to all three characters's wardrobes to allow free access to Zancudo Military base. .99 cents All totaled up that would be $18.90 for everything. Maybe they could offer you a $15.00 price if you buy all of those packs at in one package Again, I can promise you that nothing like this will EVER be released. All I can tell you is that I would buy all of that if it were!

Funny that you exactly quote this one mission in which you are not allowed to leave a specific set route, since the mission is mostly for plot reasons and NY isn't modeled properly. Most of the other missions are rather open(especially Heist setups) and there is a distinct mix between full-scripted missions like the Human Labs Raid and some of the Heists, and the open missions like Trevors ones. I agree with you. I think that there are certain missions that have some restrictions in them, and they kind of irk me for sandboc-philosophical reason. The problem I have with some people posting about restrictiveness is that they parlay these few-and-far-between parts of missions (not even entire missions, mind you) into a Straw Man argument that basically says that "GTA V is a restrictive game." Would I prefer to have a wide-open field of play with little or no restrictions? Sure, but it isn't like GTA V is in any danger of approaching the same kind of linear play that makes me want to claw my own eyeballs out in some games. Just a couple of things here and there. And yes, I do find them often disappointing, but in the grand scheme of things, acceptable. The truth is that I was pretty disappointed when I kept failing Burying the Hatchet for leaving the GPS route to the cemetery where Brad is buried in Michael's grave. I would much rather they just created some artificial, invisible border like Volition did in the How the Saints Saved Christmas DLC for Saints Row IV. I think there is a glitch that allows access back into North Yankton, but I never really tried it. Again, though, while these kinds of scripted restrictions are disappointing, it isn't like they are some pervasive theme permeating the entire game.

The Saints Row franchise (Which has the level of content I was hoping V would have), Fallout 3, New Vegas (And I'm still discovering stuff), Dead Rising 1&2, RDR, Driver: SF, Max Payne 3, Left 4 Dead, Mercenaries 2 and a large number of PS2 games.

Urbex. Its a word i use when i go exploring, it can be place, any time, any condition So I was thinking that this could be done in any games, However my posts will be mainly centered around GTA V, Hence the thread being located here The idea is to go off the Beaten path, Preferably on foot, however vehicles can be used, and even featured in the screen shots if you think they are fitting. Go to places that wouldn't normally be seen, or missed when flying past in your McLaren P1 or whatever you drive Just an FYI, I will be role playing as my Online Character, Feel free to do the same! Rules These ones HAVE to be followed 1. Any Place, Any Weather, Any Time 2. The City/County/State/Country it was taken must be included 3. The exact Location where the Photo was taken is NOT to be included, This is to get others to go exploring =D 4. It has to be a Photo or Screenshot of some sort, No Video please 5. NO Arguments 6. If an Image added is NOT yours, you must add where you got it from These ones DO NOT Have to be followed 1. Preferably no filters, but you can use them 2. Being in the GTA series, It can be games such as Watch Dogs or Saints Row 3. Have Fun!, You can hate this if you want 4. Conversations, They are allowed but you don't have to have them if you do not wish to Misc Things 1. If a City/County/State/Country is Unknown put N/A (be sure to check list of Games and their locations) 2. If HUD is in a screenshot, Do Not Worry, We are not here for perfect screenshots, Just for the Exploration Game Locations Template City(s): Town(s): County(s): State(s): Country(s): Map: Game Locations Feel Free to leave suggestions for games and details in your comments =D All Maps were acquired from Wiki pages related to each game Locations were gathered from Own Knowledge and Wiki pages related to the game I shall start this off City: Los Santos County: Los Santos County State: San Andreas Country: U.S.A. City: N/A County: Los Santos County State: San Andreas Country: U.S.A.

Yea sure, SP is a tutorial. That's why it was advertised more than Online leading up to release. Has an actual story compared to Online's loose story. Is more than 15+ hours, rushing through. Has tons of collectables, side content, and side missions. Sure. It's like saying that Saints Row 3's story was a tutorial for it's Whored Mode.

I mean, you'd think these guys who claim to be disappointed with the game would find something else to pass their time. Two years later. Yes and no. I am absolutely disappointed in some things in GTA V, I won't lie. I will stand by my opinion that the single player has been subordinated to the online play, which effectively nerfs the main character(s) you play as. However, and this is important: Even with all that, I still love GTA V. Yes, there are things I lament. But, the reason I am still here is because even after 2+ years, I think that in a great many ways, GTA V is a fabulous game. To give credence to your point, however (which I intrinsically agree with) I unequivocally HATED GTA Snore GTA IV. But here's the important difference that I think bears mentioning as well as being said in support of your position: When I was let down to the point of being heartbroken by GTA IV, coming off the heels of the AWESOME (for its time) San Andreas, I complained, I whined, I bitched, and I moaned............................wait for it........................for a few weeks. Then I was GONE from all the various GTA Snore GTA IV communities on Rockstar's site, Neoseeker, Gamefaqs, and all other forum sites. I mean, why on Earth would I continue hanging around in a forum for a game I hated? I wouldn't do that to myself. I took my marbles and went home, so to speak. I played Saints Row 1 and 2 over and over again; revisited III, VC, and SA many times, and in 2010, started playing Just Cause 2. But I STOPPED obsessing over GTA Snore and moved on. Now, since I love GTA V, and am actually in the early stages of yet another 100% campaign in the game, I am more than happy to discuss all the things I love and hate about it. But if I felt about this game the way I do about IV, I would not be here. I may actually not have a single post in the GTA Snore forum on this site, but I am not sure.

Does anyone know if there's more than tethering things to things and explosions when free roaming in JC3? I'd like a sandbox game I can play after the story, but with more than blowing things up, I'd be blown away for a while but even big explosions get boring for me eventually. Google seems short of answers right now. None of the Sandbox games including Saints Row 3/4 or Assassins Dogs have really appealed to me after completing them, but GTA always has. I don't know why. Edit: it seems you can stick a sticky bomb on a passer-by, then tether them to something or someone and use them as a bomb From what I've seen, unrealistic but really big explosions, the fire isn't very good. Pedestrian A.I seems a bit sh*t. Right now anyway, it'll probably be patched.

My vote is for restricted zones (second option in poll list). I have no idea why there are much restricted areas in SINGLEPLAYER?!? For me only logical restricted areas are: the military base Fort Zancudo, Los Santos International Airport and the prison Bolingbroke Penitentuary, and I could understand to receive an wanted level for entering there places... But what is the hell about unreasonable wanted level for entering Saint Row Police Station, Human Labs & Research, Backlot City, KortzCenter or Los Santos Golf Club in Los Santos??? I have no clue why Rockstar made these places unrestricted only in GTA Online but in Singleplayer (StoryMode) they are restricted so if you enter as Trevor / Michael / Franklin, your ass is kicked because entering these areas will BAM! - instant wanted level! I think in Story Mode, entering Los Santos Golf Club, Backlot City, Human Labs & Research and KortzCenter supposed to be NOT dangerous, and therefore unrestricted and entering them do should NOT earns any wanted level at all for any of the three StoryMode protalgonists...

I haven't played Saints Row in a very long time, I played the first game on an Xbox 360 until the disc got screwed up so that the west part of the city was broken (I didn't even have GTA IV back then). But I do remember that it had some very good features I always wished were in a GTA game. They implemented a lot of really good stuff in the very first Saints Row game. Ever wanted to have a driver so you can just sit back and shoot at anything from the passanger seat? Call up a friend to do the driving for you, and it was done so f*cking well, telling the driver where to go was so simple and quick by flicking the left stick in the direction you wanted to go. We still don't have a GTA with anything of the sort. Closest thing is Mohammed in IV but he drives like sh*t and you have to bring up the destination menu before reaching a place or he'll drop you off and drive off. The MP3 player was also pretty nice too, not having to drive anything to listen to some music. Would have been nice in TLAD to have LCHC in the background while causing mayhem. That's all I can remember without having to google what Saints Row had. GTA always did the game mechanics and physics well, but lacked some nice features (except for San Andreas which had a lot of stuff). Imagine if we could have the best of GTA and the early Saints Row games, since Saints Row never bothered to make the mechanics better and went off to become a super hero game, and GTA went on to become a retirement simulator with regressing game mechanics.

But, why not?There are gangs, customization, low-riders, shootouts, so why not add in gang wars and territory acquisition and give the players have an option to get good taste of the gang lifestyle. There are mods for V that offer so much creative work to enhance this concept furthermore bringing in drug dealing and a variety of activities that totally change the way Franklin's role plays out. The Franklin in the story and the Franklin outside the story ( modded ) has a day and night difference in terms of replay ability and fun. The former version of Franklin is an absolute bore and hurts my brain. In fact, there are so many things in this game and on the streets of the city regarding the gangs that supports the feature more strongly backing it up as a legitimate request. Do you understand the meaning of lore? There's a good amount of background info regarding the gangs in this game, the culture of the gangs, the environment, etc. that players have found and discussed a lot. I can prove this fact: The Official GTA 5 Gang Database! Gang Life in Los Santos Also, GTA5 Hood/Gang Environment thread discusses and raises good points about the gangs having so much potential but was executed the wrong way. An excerpt: - Why do we have so much interesting gangs in the game but not any real interaction. The idea is to have random fights, shootouts, drug deals, cartel or mafia wars (Franklin and Trevor and slightly Michael could all participate separately.) We can't recruit any other "homies" in the families when playing as franklin?? I know he's not CJ this is a different era/universe but since when can a gangbanger in real life not get his homies to go bang on enemies? Where in the game do you find as much LORE and an environment full of people are doing Yoga, playing tennis, golf, etc???? Nowhere except the areas that allow the player to engage in these activities, totally scripted and nothing interesting to focus on the background of these features nor do they enhance the environment of the city, yet it seems like a good idea to many to support these nonsense stuff which really don't help to make the game interesting nor replay able in the long run. Just look at Saints row and how it tapped the potential in the right way. It puts GTA V to shame and absolutely idiotic on Rickstars part to waste the game's potential over nonsense stuff that literally doesn't remotely fit in any way to the theme of the series, over the gang wars and other traditionally popular and crime related stuff being stripped away. I can understand if you, or anyone, PERSONALLY DISLIKES and have no tastes for gang wars /territory acquisition, but as a franchise, you should not let your personal dislikes/hatred come in the way and become biased towards something which obviously feels much more important as a feature over what currently exists in this game as "options" to enjoy in the name of side activities. One should always think in the spirit of the series' and support every idea that clearly shows potential over things seen in this game, and with some creative effort, it definitely can become better, more enjoyable and acceptable to all players who want some really good taste of GTA gaming. In a time where other games are like Saints Row have shown how much they understood the potential of many of the ideas of Rockstar games, and left a defining mark of their own on those ideas, by not adding nor improving their own established ideas Rockstar are just making themselves open for criticisms on every launch of their GTA title.