Und3r5c0r3 Posted June 3, 2008 Author Share Posted June 3, 2008 I'm not sure I understand... you think features were left out to be sold back in DLC, but if there were no vehicle for DLC then all that content would have been in the original game at no extra profit? Yup, that's what I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayninja Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 I'm not sure I understand... you think features were left out to be sold back in DLC, but if there were no vehicle for DLC then all that content would have been in the original game at no extra profit? Yup, that's what I think. Meh, I've heard worse theories, but I still think money rules all and that they can stand on the name they've build to deliver pretty much any product they want at insane profits. No reason not to capitalize on that no matter what distribution means are available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Und3r5c0r3 Posted June 3, 2008 Author Share Posted June 3, 2008 I'm not sure I understand... you think features were left out to be sold back in DLC, but if there were no vehicle for DLC then all that content would have been in the original game at no extra profit? Yup, that's what I think. Meh, I've heard worse theories, but I still think money rules all and that they can stand on the name they've build to deliver pretty much any product they want at insane profits. No reason not to capitalize on that no matter what distribution means are available. I understand what you mean, but R* has never been one to focus on the profits and completely ignore the players. They aren't like EA. They aren't known to release 150 sh*tty sequels per year. I guess R* might be going in that direction now, though. It is the next generation, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr benway Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 I'm not sure I understand... you think features were left out to be sold back in DLC, but if there were no vehicle for DLC then all that content would have been in the original game at no extra profit? Yup, that's what I think. Meh, I've heard worse theories, but I still think money rules all and that they can stand on the name they've build to deliver pretty much any product they want at insane profits. No reason not to capitalize on that no matter what distribution means are available. niko would've done the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellsMcK Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 (edited) Well, let's be fair. That may not be their plan. They may have only made an average game by accident. edit: I should add that this is an average game by GTA standards, which still makes it a better than average game. But by GTA standards, it's, well, standard. It's definately above average for a GTA but if they made the standards too high they wouldn't have been able to make it any better, leaving us with a tony hawk like game series. So you're telling us that this GTA is bad by saying "DLC ruined the game, well, maybe not ruined, but worsened", especially worsened, that like saying GTA couldn't get any worse, until we found out about DLC. Edited June 3, 2008 by MckMan31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr benway Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Well, let's be fair. That may not be their plan. They may have only made an average game by accident. edit: I should add that this is an average game by GTA standards, which still makes it a better than average game. But by GTA standards, it's, well, standard. It's definately above average for a GTA but if they made the standards too high they wouldn't have been able to make it any better, leaving us with a tony hawk like game series. wait, does tony hawk have a storyline? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellsMcK Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Well, let's be fair. That may not be their plan. They may have only made an average game by accident. edit: I should add that this is an average game by GTA standards, which still makes it a better than average game. But by GTA standards, it's, well, standard. It's definately above average for a GTA but if they made the standards too high they wouldn't have been able to make it any better, leaving us with a tony hawk like game series. wait, does tony hawk have a storyline? Yeah, but a sh*tty one. It is very boring, if theres anything fun you want to do, you've most likely already done it in a past tony hawk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsy Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Watch out fellas, we have some hardcore fellas who enjoy drinking, but not with there friends, but with with THE INTERNET!!! :facepalm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moncs Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Watch out fellas, we have some hardcore fellas who enjoy drinking, but not with there friends, but with with THE INTERNET!!! :facepalm: I've drunk with the internet before but it called me a noob and told me to gtfo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayninja Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 It's definately above average for a GTA but if they made the standards too high they wouldn't have been able to make it any better I've been thinking about this statement for a while now and it still confuses and scares me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr benway Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Watch out fellas, we have some hardcore fellas who enjoy drinking, but not with there friends, but with with THE INTERNET!!! :facepalm: someone's jealous... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellsMcK Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 It's definately above average for a GTA but if they made the standards too high they wouldn't have been able to make it any better I've been thinking about this statement for a while now and it still confuses and scares me. Well if we had the best GTA ever made than R* would been like "Well f*ck, thats the best we can think of, we used all the features we could think of." Everyone would be terribly disappointed with all the GTA's having lots of features but each GTA after it would feel like a clone of the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayninja Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 It's definately above average for a GTA but if they made the standards too high they wouldn't have been able to make it any better I've been thinking about this statement for a while now and it still confuses and scares me. Well if we had the best GTA ever made than R* would been like "Well f*ck, thats the best we can think of, we used all the features we could think of." Everyone would be terribly disappointed with all the GTA's having lots of features but each GTA after it would feel like a clone of the other. Maybe I'm way off base here, but shouldn't the goal be to create the best GTA ever every time they make one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyessorc Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 It's definately above average for a GTA but if they made the standards too high they wouldn't have been able to make it any better I've been thinking about this statement for a while now and it still confuses and scares me. Well if we had the best GTA ever made than R* would been like "Well f*ck, thats the best we can think of, we used all the features we could think of." Everyone would be terribly disappointed with all the GTA's having lots of features but each GTA after it would feel like a clone of the other. Maybe I'm way off base here, but shouldn't the goal be to create the best GTA ever every time they make one? Bingo, in business, the goal should and is (at least in the maker's mind) to bring out the best quality per constraints (money, time, etc.). Thus, we know they could have put more in this game (c'mon they're R after all and they always do) but for some reason some stuff is "held back" as we can tell. Most likely for dlc (no, I don't have a source as people always say that which I can't stand) it appears, which, like ppl have pointed out, it's the bus. world and greed is always a factor for humanity (no matter how good your intention is) when $$ rolls in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motorforum Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Current gen games take an age to create, so if you expect developers to put in everything they can, you have to expect them to take 5 years or so to do it, especially for their first game on the new platforms and using new game engines like Euphoria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintJimmy Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 I just find it sad that the DLC has kind've split the whole GTA community in half. it just increases fanboysim. ps3 owners feel like they need to defend their console and that leads to all this bullcrap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodclot Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 yea.... true and sad indeed...mushrooms weed alcohol and vicodin for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintJimmy Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 yeah. im probably going to get flamed very soon...but i wish we could just all get along Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodclot Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 yeah. im probably going to get flamed very soon...but i wish we could just all get along funny you talk about "fanboyism" when you make such a statement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrernie Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Who says there will be new items in the DLC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintJimmy Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 yeah. im probably going to get flamed very soon...but i wish we could just all get along funny you talk about "fanboyism" when you make such a statement wth do you mean by that? 1 - i said the DLC makes ps3 owners defend for their system; and they will resort to saying their console is better. just like 360 owners will do. and that increases flaming and fanboysim. 2 - then i said i wish we could all get along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Mozzarelli 80 Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 It's definately above average for a GTA but if they made the standards too high they wouldn't have been able to make it any better I've been thinking about this statement for a while now and it still confuses and scares me. Well if we had the best GTA ever made than R* would been like "Well f*ck, thats the best we can think of, we used all the features we could think of." Everyone would be terribly disappointed with all the GTA's having lots of features but each GTA after it would feel like a clone of the other. It reminds me of a science show i was watching the other week, in which a self proclaimed expert claimed that technological advancement has reached it's pinnacle, and everything that could possibly be invented, already has been. All i can say is, thank f*ck the real scientific community does not share this view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spike88 Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Welcome to current gen gaming. It only gets worse from here. Wait until they start charging for patches. I dont think they can ever charge for patches. If you are paying for the full game, and it has an error that ruins gameplay, they either have to patch it, or return your money, in full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emigrating Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Ok, now I'm gonna be classified as a H4T3R yet again. Current gen games take an age to create, so if you expect developers to put in everything they can, you have to expect them to take 5 years or so to do it, especially for their first game on the new platforms and using new game engines like Euphoria. True that, but honestly - I would have easily waited another year or so for GTA IV if it meant all the "missing" features would have been included. To me, the game feels unfinished, I can't quite put my finger on it - it just has that "mediocre" (in lack of a better description) feel to it. As has been said so many times before, even though this may not be a direct sequel to GTA:SA, it's a sequel nontheless and alot of the new GTA fans (who joined the franchise with SA) would expect it to have the same sort of features the old [sA] game did. Now, personally I've played GTA's since the first ever game was released on PC, so I know this is still better than III or whatever, but a huge part of the fanbase (SA brought in millions of new fans) has not. For me, I could care less about the fingerless gloves (and to be honest, anyone who posts about them being missing is doing so out of need for attention), going to the gym (although, some kind of "hand to hand combat training" or "target practise" would be cool), getting your hair cut or having tattoos - the game just does not feel like what was described in countless interviews with R* staff, previews or even a couple reviews (and these are core gameplay mechanics - I've posted a list before, so I'm not going to copy myself again). Sure, it's a great game, the attention to detail is amazing in places, but in others they've gone back to their old ways of copy'n'paste interiors/textures. Take the hallways in the projects for example, you have 15+ storey buildings looking exactly the same from floor to floor, really, how hard would it have been to create at least a handful of different texture sets for these buildings? The same is true for most of the lowrise stairwells in the game, they all look the same apart from a few objects "randomly" placed. I've said this before, but I'll say it again anyway - looking at some of the early previews of the game, they included things which are now missing. As we all know, part of the reason for the delay was performance on the PS3 (I'm not going to provide "proof" of this as anyone intelligent enough to read these forums have already seen the articles/interviews stating this) and it's my belief certain features were cut out of the game because the PS3 couldn't handle them (the game is already running at a reduced resolution with a lower framerate, albeit only noticable in side-by-side comparisons). R* said they wanted the game to be as close to identical on both platforms as possible, that means if one console couldn't handle certain aspects of the game as-is it had to go. Some of these "missing" features may be added in DLC at a later date, but really, I'm not holding my breath. I have, what I would class as, fairly low hopes for the exclusive DLC - I expect them to be a three of so "random characters", with perhaps 5 or 6 missions each. In addition I expect some of the city to change - such as current buildingwork being completed and perhaps new constructions taking place. There is also "evidence" pointing towards new landmass, but if this is in the DLC it'll be a small island and nowhere near as big as some people think. That's what I expect to be in [each] DLC pack - in reality though, it wouldn't surprise me if all we get are the random encounters and possibly a couple new MP modes (perhaps more coop missions). If you're read this far - sorry for ranting and raving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatertotts Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Watch out fellas, we have some hardcore fellas who enjoy drinking, but not with there friends, but with with THE INTERNET!!! What is this "friends" you speak of? emigrating: I agree with pretty much all of what you've said, but I think that people who expect IV to include most of the small features introduced in SA aren't just limited to people who started with SA. I played them all, but III was the first one I actually bought (played I and II at friends' houses). Like VC and SA had, I expected IV to be all that and more. And I like it, but I miss some of the stuff that was in the last game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldage Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 f*ck , if i need to pay for the DLC....screw you R*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RONIN1191 Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 hell i'm drunk and just looking for a good debate to be honest so don't worry 'bout me. i'm only playing devil's advocate. Ha! Me too. Johnny Walker red for me. What's your poison? smirnoff triple distilled vodka for me. JW Black here...Blue when I can afford it. Heh. But I'm not drunk right now; just wish I was. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notgtajerk Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 psn already does charge for patches. most are $9.99. sad 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