jackel311 Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 Instead of ye old rags to riches tale, apparently GTA IV is a tale of "rags to slightly better rags", i hope this is some kind of metaphor, because i want a mansion, what's the point in playing if your not going to achieve your goal!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlx Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 having fun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeperRed Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 I hope it like GTA 3 not like SA, that story sucked complete ass. VC was the only one to pull of Rags to RIches rght Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackel311 Posted December 26, 2007 Author Share Posted December 26, 2007 having fun? When playing a game you usually do have fun, i also want a reward for my efforts, in game- something to make me feel like i've completed the game, proof that all the things i've done has been worthwhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackel311 Posted December 26, 2007 Author Share Posted December 26, 2007 I hope it like GTA 3 not like SA, that story sucked complete ass. VC was the only one to pull of Rags to RIches rght Definately, Diaz's mansion was sweet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Effy in Chains Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 I agree with jackel311 I want to become rich and get a mansion. It wouldn't feel like much of an accomplishment if you were rewarded with a terrace house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackel311 Posted December 26, 2007 Author Share Posted December 26, 2007 I agree with jackel311 I want to become rich and get a mansion. It wouldn't feel like much of an accomplishment if you were rewarded with a terrace house. I hope we shouldn't be worrying - as Roman says "the mansion is coming". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mafioso86 Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 i'm thinking it's gunna be kinda like liberty city stories... where at the beginning tony was just 'dumb muscle,' but by the end of it he was a made man/capo... not the leader of the mafia or anything, but he moved up. The 'rags to slightly better rags' thing i think needs to not be taken so literally. I mean I could be wrong but, "The mansion is coming cousin, that's the dream... we're going to the top Niko, soon even you will forget about the old country," sticks out in my mind as an indicator that Niko and Roman will at least find some level of success beyond 'slightly better rags' in liberty city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simseth Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 You'll be able to get a penthouse, a very nice one I bet. What would be a GTA in New York City without a penthouse at some point. When they say it's not rags to riches, it means - you're not going to own every business, or any for that matter. Rags to slightly better rags means you'll kill for the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Effy in Chains Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 You'll be able to get a penthouse, a very nice one I bet. What would be a GTA in New York City without a penthouse at some point. When they say it's not rags to riches, it means - you're not going to own every business, or any for that matter. Rags to slightly better rags means you'll kill for the money. If we get a penthouse I hope we can go on every floor of the skyscraper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackel311 Posted December 26, 2007 Author Share Posted December 26, 2007 You'll be able to get a penthouse, a very nice one I bet. What would be a GTA in New York City without a penthouse at some point. When they say it's not rags to riches, it means - you're not going to own every business, or any for that matter. Rags to slightly better rags means you'll kill for the money. Yeah, that would be fine, after all, Niko is just a small fish in a big pond, a penthouse would keep me happy (as long as you could go on all/most of its floors). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simseth Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 Rockstar confirmed, if you can go in a building, you can go everywhere in that building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackMamba47 Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 I think in the end we'll have a very nice apartment, perhaps a penthouse, and then along the way a few safehouses in each of the 4 boroughs and NJ, simply because the size and scope of the game would make it silly to have to drive all the way back to Broker from say Alderney because the only safehouse and place to save is at the Taxi Depot. Unless of course R* decided to allow us to save anywhere like in SR, but I can't see them doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackel311 Posted December 26, 2007 Author Share Posted December 26, 2007 I think in the end we'll have a very nice apartment, perhaps a penthouse, and then along the way a few safehouses in each of the 4 boroughs and NJ, simply because the size and scope of the game would make it silly to have to drive all the way back to Broker from say Alderney because the only safehouse and place to save is at the Taxi Depot. Unless of course R* decided to allow us to save anywhere like in SR, but I can't see them doing that. It was quite annoying having to go to the safehouse to save (in oblivion another massive game, you could save wherever you were) but yeah there's no real need to change it so i doubt R* will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Effy in Chains Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 I think in the end we'll have a very nice apartment, perhaps a penthouse, and then along the way a few safehouses in each of the 4 boroughs and NJ, simply because the size and scope of the game would make it silly to have to drive all the way back to Broker from say Alderney because the only safehouse and place to save is at the Taxi Depot. Unless of course R* decided to allow us to save anywhere like in SR, but I can't see them doing that. It was quite annoying having to go to the safehouse to save (in oblivion another massive game, you could save wherever you were) but yeah there's no real need to change it so i doubt R* will. Well I hope we can save anywhere, so that I don't lose where I'm up to in the game when my console crashes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackel311 Posted December 26, 2007 Author Share Posted December 26, 2007 I think in the end we'll have a very nice apartment, perhaps a penthouse, and then along the way a few safehouses in each of the 4 boroughs and NJ, simply because the size and scope of the game would make it silly to have to drive all the way back to Broker from say Alderney because the only safehouse and place to save is at the Taxi Depot. Unless of course R* decided to allow us to save anywhere like in SR, but I can't see them doing that. It was quite annoying having to go to the safehouse to save (in oblivion another massive game, you could save wherever you were) but yeah there's no real need to change it so i doubt R* will. Well I hope we can save anywhere, so that I don't lose where I'm up to in the game when my console crashes. Console crashes? You should sell your PS3 and get a reliable 360! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie89 Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 360 aint reliable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackel311 Posted December 26, 2007 Author Share Posted December 26, 2007 360 aint reliable Yeah, I know its sh*t. Kalasinn actually has a good point it would be awful if the game crashed or it got "disc is unreadable" just after you completed a really hard mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlx Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 i don't need rewards like mansions or new clothes for my characters.. reward me with a good story that surprises me and has believable characters... i've yet to see that in videogame.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackel311 Posted December 26, 2007 Author Share Posted December 26, 2007 i don't need rewards like mansions or new clothes for my characters.. reward me with a good story that surprises me and has believable characters... i've yet to see that in videogame.. Yea, about time for some REAL plot twists! (Ones that you can't see coming). But videogames aren't supposed to be believable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlx Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 (edited) Why aren't videogames supposed to be believable?? Also.. I was talking about characters, not games. The characters have to make sense in the world they live in.. but I think r* nailed that this time. Edited December 26, 2007 by dlx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZaZ9291 Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 In my opinion in 3 the game didn't even focus around becoming rich so I think the actual character never became rich just wealthy from all the jobs he did. In VC as other people said is the only one where toy rise from nothing to everything. And San Andreas was just ridiculous, even though it was rags to riches it was so unrealistic and everything. I would just like to say, though, in one of the first articles out for GTA IV Dan or Sam Houser didn't say it was rags to slightly better rags, rather he said it was rags to somewhere in between. Which I'm guessing is a nice pretty decently sized house, or a small mansion, good money and respect throughout certain groups in LC. And ever since that article I have been going off of that rather than rags to slightly better rags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackel311 Posted December 26, 2007 Author Share Posted December 26, 2007 (edited) why aren't they supposed to be believable?? You play a game to be somone you're not eg, in Stranglehold you play as a cop- realisticly he'd spend half his time doing paperwork but a game filling out paperwork wouldn't be fun, just like having to fill up a car with petrol to drive it, would just be annoying. Though of course some realism is needed otherwise games would be completely stupid. Yea, characters seem to be good. Edited December 26, 2007 by jackel311 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Effy in Chains Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 why aren't they supposed to be believable?? You play a game to be somone you're not eg, in Stranglehold you play as a cop- realisticly he'd spend half his time doing paperwork but a game filling out paperwork wouldn't be fun, just like having to fill up a car with petrol to drive it, would just be annoying. Though of course some realism is needed otherwise games would be completely stupid. Completely stupid like Nintendo games? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackel311 Posted December 26, 2007 Author Share Posted December 26, 2007 why aren't they supposed to be believable?? You play a game to be somone you're not eg, in Stranglehold you play as a cop- realisticly he'd spend half his time doing paperwork but a game filling out paperwork wouldn't be fun, just like having to fill up a car with petrol to drive it, would just be annoying. Though of course some realism is needed otherwise games would be completely stupid. Completely stupid like Nintendo games? lol Exactly like Nintendo games - they're stupid and for babies - that's why GTA IV isn't on the Wii. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Effy in Chains Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 why aren't they supposed to be believable?? You play a game to be somone you're not eg, in Stranglehold you play as a cop- realisticly he'd spend half his time doing paperwork but a game filling out paperwork wouldn't be fun, just like having to fill up a car with petrol to drive it, would just be annoying. Though of course some realism is needed otherwise games would be completely stupid. Completely stupid like Nintendo games? lol Exactly like Nintendo games - they're stupid and for babies - that's why GTA IV isn't on the Wii. Yeah and becuase the Wii has really crap graphics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatest Thing Alive Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 why aren't they supposed to be believable?? You play a game to be somone you're not eg, in Stranglehold you play as a cop- realisticly he'd spend half his time doing paperwork but a game filling out paperwork wouldn't be fun, just like having to fill up a car with petrol to drive it, would just be annoying. Though of course some realism is needed otherwise games would be completely stupid. Completely stupid like Nintendo games? lol Exactly like Nintendo games - they're stupid and for babies - that's why GTA IV isn't on the Wii. whoa what aweful words to say to a system that all of ya'll have played since childhood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackel311 Posted December 26, 2007 Author Share Posted December 26, 2007 why aren't they supposed to be believable?? You play a game to be somone you're not eg, in Stranglehold you play as a cop- realisticly he'd spend half his time doing paperwork but a game filling out paperwork wouldn't be fun, just like having to fill up a car with petrol to drive it, would just be annoying. Though of course some realism is needed otherwise games would be completely stupid. Completely stupid like Nintendo games? lol Exactly like Nintendo games - they're stupid and for babies - that's why GTA IV isn't on the Wii. Yeah and becuase the Wii has really crap graphics. I know, it would be awful if the 360 and PS3 versions had mediokre graphics because the Wii was occupying their time with its stupid, gimmicky contollers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlx Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 thats not what I'm talking about...you're confusing things.. I'm talking about the story here. A believable character is a character that makes sense for the story and the world it's placed in. Michael Corleone in Godfather is believable even though we don't see him wipe his ass after a sh*t.. right? Same here... I hope the story is going to be a bit like the Sopranos was done. That was realistic and funny at the same time. And Tony had a pretty nice mansion... so we both get what we want. and in stranglehold... realistically?? he would just get fired from the job and drink himself to death in a depressing apartment somewhere in hongkong. inspector tequila... goddamn right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackel311 Posted December 26, 2007 Author Share Posted December 26, 2007 why aren't they supposed to be believable?? You play a game to be somone you're not eg, in Stranglehold you play as a cop- realisticly he'd spend half his time doing paperwork but a game filling out paperwork wouldn't be fun, just like having to fill up a car with petrol to drive it, would just be annoying. Though of course some realism is needed otherwise games would be completely stupid. Completely stupid like Nintendo games? lol Exactly like Nintendo games - they're stupid and for babies - that's why GTA IV isn't on the Wii. whoa what aweful words to say to a system that all of ya'll have played since childhood. Yea, but times have changed and it seems Nintendo haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now