Jump to content

The evolution of GTA.


Mainland Marauder

Recommended Posts

You know, GTA is the star in this show, many others try to copy its formula, and the thing is that even if it seems like they are millions of years away from doing so, they are slowly occupying terrain, GTA is getting boring, i'm saying this based in the fact that GTA IV was a fail, not in the market, but for the gamers, they want to relive the old formula, and that's valid, they don't want a realistic game like IV was supposed to be, that means, that they found IV boring to an extent, now Rockstar has 2 options, 1: to come back to the good ol' formula and keep their fans happy or 2: keep going with the realistic stuff BUT avoiding that this would get stale and dull and that would be only achieved adding new things, creating a sense of immersion never seen before, that is, making the character being not like past gta's (you vs robots) but being you vs the world, I mean getting robbed, without money, with needs with more interaction to the outside, I hated how EVERY gta has those pedestrians that only walk and drink stuff, eat etc but only acting as robots without talking to you, without buying things, etc. This is one terrain which should be improved to give a real immersion feel to the player, otherwise the franchise will get very old fast, that is the trick, it does not matter if it has beautiful graphics the only thing that really matters is to make you feel small in a big world, that is the key for the success

See no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil...

 

I LOST A FRIEND, MAY GOD REST YOUR SOUL, ZEE

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

 

user posted image

 

user posted image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, GTA is the star in this show, many others try to copy its formula, and the thing is that even if it seems like they are millions of years away from doing so, they are slowly occupying terrain, GTA is getting boring, i'm saying this based in the fact that GTA IV was a fail, not in the market, but for the gamers, they want to relive the old formula, and that's valid, they don't want a realistic game like IV was supposed to be, that means, that they found IV boring to an extent, now Rockstar has 2 options, 1: to come back to the good ol' formula and keep their fans happy or 2: keep going with the realistic stuff BUT avoiding that this would get stale and dull and that would be only achieved adding new things, creating a sense of immersion never seen before, that is, making the character being not like past gta's (you vs robots) but being you vs the world, I mean getting robbed, without money, with needs with more interaction to the outside, I hated how EVERY gta has those pedestrians that only walk and drink stuff, eat etc but only acting as robots without talking to you, without buying things, etc. This is one terrain which should be improved to give a real immersion feel to the player, otherwise the franchise will get very old fast, that is the trick, it does not matter if it has beautiful graphics the only thing that really matters is to make you feel small in a big world, that is the key for the success

*R is heading to realistic formula

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ferocious Banger
You know, GTA is the star in this show, many others try to copy its formula, and the thing is that even if it seems like they are millions of years away from doing so, they are slowly occupying terrain, GTA is getting boring, i'm saying this based in the fact that GTA IV was a fail, not in the market, but for the gamers, they want to relive the old formula, and that's valid, they don't want a realistic game like IV was supposed to be, that means, that they found IV boring to an extent, now Rockstar has 2 options, 1: to come back to the good ol' formula and keep their fans happy or 2: keep going with the realistic stuff BUT avoiding that this would get stale and dull and that would be only achieved adding new things, creating a sense of immersion never seen before, that is, making the character being not like past gta's (you vs robots) but being you vs the world, I mean getting robbed, without money, with needs with more interaction to the outside, I hated how EVERY gta has those pedestrians that only walk and drink stuff, eat etc but only acting as robots without talking to you, without buying things, etc. This is one terrain which should be improved to give a real immersion feel to the player, otherwise the franchise will get very old fast, that is the trick, it does not matter if it has beautiful graphics the only thing that really matters is to make you feel small in a big world, that is the key for the success

I can say that he gamers who love GTA IV will outweigh gamers who hate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im in the same thinking as GTA_stu from when 1st played GTA in its pc topdown days it was the beautifull chaos of just running amok. In the wise words of the legendary superhans "The secret ingredient is crime"..

I laughed pretty hard. lol.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finn 7 five 11

 

Mainland marauder,

 

I understand your views regarding a lot of posts in reply to a lot of suggested features

 

"This is GTA not SIMS" being a common phrase which is both stupid and irrelevant.

I agree with the OP and all, and GTA is not one genre, it is many genres squashed together into a sandbox, possibly why it is so damn awesome.

 

But the "GTA is not the sims" is valid in some cases, see adding further customization to cars makes sense, we just don't customize if we don't like it, adding an FPS view doesn't matter either, choose a different view.

 

But adding things into the game like forcibly having to sleep every 14 hours in game or getting pulled over and booked for speeding or to check registration, or having to go to the registration office all the time for your cars, or having to stop all the time for gas and then having to get a job and work 9-5 and then look after the kids.

 

See these things are bad and ruin the game, and the "GTA is not the sims" makes sense in some cases, the game cannot go too far one way or the other or else risking to compromise everything else in the process (Customization is optional, same with FPS view) but these other things that ruin the "sandbox do whatever feel like" vive and change the game to become tedious and frustrating.

 

So basically my point is GTA is a mix of genres, but it needs to maintain a balance between them, it can't become a linear war campaign like BF or COD, it can't become like Gran Turismo or Forza either, or the Sims, it needs a balance.

 

 

Edit: Yeah...my post kind of deteriorated into a pile of rubbish.

Edited by finn4life
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, GTA is the star in this show, many others try to copy its formula, and the thing is that even if it seems like they are millions of years away from doing so, they are slowly occupying terrain, GTA is getting boring, i'm saying this based in the fact that GTA IV was a fail, not in the market, but for the gamers, they want to relive the old formula, and that's valid, they don't want a realistic game like IV was supposed to be, that means, that they found IV boring to an extent, now Rockstar has 2 options,  1: to come back to the good ol' formula and keep their fans happy or 2: keep going with the realistic stuff BUT avoiding that this would get stale and dull and that would be only achieved adding new things, creating a sense of immersion never seen before, that is, making the character being not like past gta's (you vs robots) but being you vs the world, I mean getting robbed, without money, with needs with more interaction to the outside, I hated how EVERY gta has those pedestrians that only walk and drink stuff, eat etc but only acting as robots without talking to you, without buying things, etc. This is one terrain which should be improved to give a real immersion feel to the player, otherwise the franchise will get very old fast, that is the trick, it does not matter if it has beautiful graphics the only thing that really matters is to make you feel small in a big world, that is the key for the success

I can say that he gamers who love GTA IV will outweigh gamers who hate it.

That. I agree 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honest Bill

GTAIV wasn't boring because they made it more realistic or because they changed the formula. The formula is still the same in my opinion, and it is still as ridiculous and unrealistic as ever.

 

GTAIV was a little bit boring because there wasn't enough things to do.. To match what they gave us in terms of enhanced graphics and physics etc, they needed a much greater scope of activities to be consistent with the heightened sense of 'realism' that the graphics offered. That's where i believe they got the balance wrong.. It seemed to me they rushed it out before it was ready.. But let's be fair to it, it was still a good game.

 

As far as 'realism' goes, i would like them to add considerably more of it, and think there is a great deal of room for it still in the GTA world. I just want them to be selective over what they add and why.

 

Let's use IV as an example. Lil Jacob calls you up and asks you if you want to play darts or whatever.. Well that doesn't sound like much fun to me, wouldn't it be much more interesting if Lil Jacob called you up (after the story) to tell you he is going to hit a storage warehouse in one of the industrial areas.. This could even be a text message without adding extra audio.. You then get a multi faceted mission, text will pop up on your screen, go and collect this weapon, then go and hire these goons etc, then you can pick up Jacob, who will still get to tell you his backstory as he does normally, then at the end you rob a ransom warehouses steal their generic boxes and then escape the law...

 

Doesn't that sound like more fun? And it is also more relevant to the game's theme of crime. It is also realistic, because that could happen in reality, only it''s the good, relevant, and more fun type of realism, which adds something to the game.

 

There are a multitude of different ways they could add strings of random missions for you to play after the story, and they could all be realistic and fun, and more importantly give you that atmosphere of crime to be immersed in, and also just with careful use of text they can add purpose to your post-story game time by careful use of context and tying it all up to the main story.

 

They need to add the right features in my opinion, whereas IV was a prime example of adding the wrong ones.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mainland Marauder

I'll start this off by saying I did not find IV to be boring at all. But, once again, that's all subjective.

 

I suppose there's a delicate balance to be struck. In GTA3, you had very little variety in the freeroam "screwing around" type stuff. But in 2001, people were just thrilled to have a big city world to run around, even if there wasn't a special amenity on every street. Today, people are going to expect more. With IV, it was somewhat like going back to 2001 with a new game on new hardware. Maybe I won't go back to it years down the road for the freeroam screw-around the way I do with San Andreas, but then we'll have V and I think it will be much better for that purpose than IV and its associated DLC are.

 

There's that other thread - well, probably several - talking about enterable interiors. Now, there would logically need to be a purpose for them. That includes more things to do. If you didn't care about taking Niko bowling, that's fine, but it was one thing that helped bring that boardwalk in Hove Beach to life. Your character, your badass with 10 guns in his pocket, is also just another resident of this city, taking his girlfriend/police spy/whatever on a date. You go on outings with your "friends" or, specifically, some relatively bit players in the storyline whose personalities can be fleshed out a little more through mainly optional diversions on the side. If it's an entertaining character you'll want to try different things and see what reactions you get. It was hilarious to hear Brucie bitch about going to Burger Shot. Because Brucie's a bitch. But an entertaining one.

 

Another experience from that which sticks out is Dwayne riding with Niko, telling him about how tough it was growing up, going on for a minute or two. Then Niko just says "Where I grew up, we didn't have electricity until I was 12." And that just kind of stops Dwayne's self-pity party dead in its tracks. More than anything, these things give more depth to the character you're stuck with for the whole game.

 

But the biggest balance Rockstar has to strike is to keep two different kinds of gamers happy - those who appreciate this stuff, and those who just want 50 missions of the cutscene/drive to checkpoint/enter building/make like Rambo on everyone in sight/steal the fastest car you can find/escape to safehouse routine. And that's probably more challenging than anything the gamers will deal with.

"You tell me exactly what you want, and I'll explain to you very carefully why it cannot be."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ferocious Banger

 

I'll start this off by saying I did not find IV to be boring at all. But, once again, that's all subjective.

 

I suppose there's a delicate balance to be struck. In GTA3, you had very little variety in the freeroam "screwing around" type stuff. But in 2001, people were just thrilled to have a big city world to run around, even if there wasn't a special amenity on every street. Today, people are going to expect more. With IV, it was somewhat like going back to 2001 with a new game on new hardware. Maybe I won't go back to it years down the road for the freeroam screw-around the way I do with San Andreas, but then we'll have V and I think it will be much better for that purpose than IV and its associated DLC are.

 

There's that other thread - well, probably several - talking about enterable interiors. Now, there would logically need to be a purpose for them. That includes more things to do. If you didn't care about taking Niko bowling, that's fine, but it was one thing that helped bring that boardwalk in Hove Beach to life. Your character, your badass with 10 guns in his pocket, is also just another resident of this city, taking his girlfriend/police spy/whatever on a date. You go on outings with your "friends" or, specifically, some relatively bit players in the storyline whose personalities can be fleshed out a little more through mainly optional diversions on the side. If it's an entertaining character you'll want to try different things and see what reactions you get. It was hilarious to hear Brucie bitch about going to Burger Shot. Because Brucie's a bitch. But an entertaining one.

 

Another experience from that which sticks out is Dwayne riding with Niko, telling him about how tough it was growing up, going on for a minute or two. Then Niko just says "Where I grew up, we didn't have electricity until I was 12." And that just kind of stops Dwayne's self-pity party dead in its tracks. More than anything, these things give more depth to the character you're stuck with for the whole game.

 

But the biggest balance Rockstar has to strike is to keep two different kinds of gamers happy - those who appreciate this stuff, and those who just want 50 missions of the cutscene/drive to checkpoint/enter building/make like Rambo on everyone in sight/steal the fastest car you can find/escape to safehouse routine. And that's probably more challenging than anything the gamers will deal with.

That man,is exactly what I expect from GTAV.Fortunately for me,I equally love both SA and IV.So even if it goes one way,I won't be bothered.It's like being an allrounder(or utility player in baseball) in cricket.You love bowling(pitching) or batting equally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

theworldfamous

@MM: well put. That moment with Dwayne in the car was brilliant. But I do hope they find ways to integrate friends and missions better. They were too separate. You had friends and mission givers. Once the mission giver ran out of missions he became another friend or enemy. You were either doing friend activities or missions... I think there's ways you can blend the two, and you'd kill two of the biggest gripes people have: the friends no longer feel tagged on as a distraction and getting missions will feel less like you're a pack mule for the local gallery of freaks and psychos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GTA36362355

GTA is about freedom. It's about getting immersed. Genres don't really matter.

 

Sam had his own ritualistic way of checking out the game—by immersing himself inside it. Sitting in front of a screen, he grabbed a controller and began to walk Niko down the virtual streets. He passed the storefronts under the overhead train track. He passed decrepit gray buildings, tall bleak apartment complexes. Yellow cabs streamed by. The flutter of newspapers kicking up in the breeze. The vendor pulling hot dogs from the steaming cart.

 

 

Sam could feel it. The weight of reality. The simulated world suspending his disbelief in ways he only dreamed of. This was it. He went to jack a car, but the driver wasn't having it and started to chase him down the street. Sam stopped dead in his tracks. “I'm not running from you any more,” he thought. “I'm going to f*cking have it with you now, mate.”

 

 

As he stood there, ready to slug the guy, a car suddenly careened past and—bam!—sent the dude flying like a pathetic ragdoll through the air. The collision was just another random event driven by the artificial intelligence of the game. The living, breathing world Sam had long craved came alive before his eyes. “This is how we always wanted GTA to be,” he later recalled, “but it simply wasn't possible until now.”

 

 

Climbing into his car, Sam knew just where he'd like to go: the Steinway Beer Garden, a pub where Niko could swill pints of stout and, according to a commercial, “watch drunk fat old men throw sharp instruments around a crowded room.” In real life, Sam sucked at darts, but the mini-game of darts was one of Sam's favorite and most accomplished pastimes in GTA IV—and something he could actually win.

 

 

Sam pulled up to the walled garden of Steinway's and walked in under the orange arch. He stepped into the outdoor patio, then walked along a line of trees with red autumn leaves. Drinkers socialized at white plastic tables under red-white-and-blue umbrellas that had plastic flags strung between them. Through the front door he went, into the pub with the lute music playing. A bartender stood behind the taps in a long walnut-colored bar on the right, rows of booths to the left along green-paneled walls. Down to the right in front of the bar, he saw the tattered red, black, green, and white dart board. It was time to play.

 

 

With his left thumb over the left controller stick he aimed his dart, and with a tap of a button, he let it fly. As the Irish music played, he heard a satisfying thwack as the tip of the dart logged into the board. With each dart, Sam felt a bit of his real self dematerialize, cells replaced by pixels, blood by electricity, a gamer immersed in a game, until he wasn't Sam anymore. He was Niko.

 

 

Sam had always had relationships with his game alter egos before, but there was usually some impediment to his suspension of disbelief: the top-down view of GTA and GTA2; the silent protagonist of GTA III; Liotta's voice in Vice City. Yet this felt different. The technology and the design of GTA IV had conspired to create something magic. “Niko is a real person to me now,” Sam thought.

 

 

This feeling of connection extended to relationships with other players in the game. Befriend one, and he brings you a helicopter; earn the trust of another, and he introduces you to an important contact. In a scene that Sam found particularly moving, Niko had to save Roman from a mob of fifteen angry Albanians. As Sam urgently worked his buttons while his cousin screamed for help, he felt awed by the emotions swirling inside him. “The idea of having feelings for a bunch of polygons is very profound,” he later recalled.

 

 

Sam realized the implications of this one morning back in New York as he was driving over the Brooklyn Bridge. In the distance, the skyscrapers rose above the South Street Seaport, where he had lived with the others in the Commune so many years ago. They had come to America to live out their fantasies, to make the games they wanted to play, and, in turn, to make games urgent for a new generation. They had fought for this dream, from the streets of SoHo to the halls of Capitol Hill. They had been celebrated and vilified, rewarded and fined, had survived murders and marriages, suicides and births. They had even seen the tallest buildings in town crumble and fall.

 

 

Yet through it all, this amazing city remained. New York. The place he'd dreamed of as a kid sitting in his bedroom listening to Slayer. Now the city was his to share. Decoded. Replicated. Simulated. A living, breathing world on a disc that anyone could play. For weeks, he had been in Edinburgh, immersed in Liberty City, but now, as New York City towered above him, something shifted inside him. Why doesn't this feel different? he wondered. Then it hit him. It didn't feel different because the simulated world had come so vividly to life. “I didn't feel like I'd left,” he realized, “because I'd been here the whole time.”

 

 

After a decade of fights and betrayals, dreams and nightmares, the players had done it. Video games didn't seem so outlaw anymore—and neither did the industry's most influential player, Sam. The thirty-six-year-old was now living in a tony brownstone on a leafy street in Brooklyn with his wife and kids. He had even gone through the long naturalization process to become a United States citizen. After making such iconically American games, he was now an American too.

 

 

When Sam reflected on the adversity he'd overcome, it was as if he spoke for the entire generation who had grown up on his games. “It's made our resolve that much stronger,” he told a reporter one day, “and in some ways I feel that some of the negative stuff had to happen to keep everybody's feet on the ground, and to keep everybody hungry and motivated. . . . the fact that, after all this time, we can still be this hungry and ambitious and driven and crazy—that's got to be a good sign. Because if they can't shake us now, then what can they do to us?”

 

 

This game was over; this mission, complete. It was time for another to begin. “What have I got left to achieve?” Sam asked. “Everything.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mainland Marauder
@MM: well put. That moment with Dwayne in the car was brilliant. But I do hope they find ways to integrate friends and missions better. They were too separate. You had friends and mission givers. Once the mission giver ran out of missions he became another friend or enemy. You were either doing friend activities or missions... I think there's ways you can blend the two, and you'd kill two of the biggest gripes people have: the friends no longer feel tagged on as a distraction and getting missions will feel less like you're a pack mule for the local gallery of freaks and psychos.

Eh, I think it did just fine. There are only so many missions, so they're over quickly if you go through them quickly. And of course it has to be reconciled with events in the storyline, which is progressed through the missions. (There's another "core" GTA characteristic.)

 

You could only hang with Dwayne after you'd had the choice to kill him or Playboy X. Makes sense, because your decision beforehand would've been colored by the fact you'd been fraternizing with one of them beyond your usual GTA criminal business. Now I'd choose to whack X anyway because he was a weasel anyway and, besides, I like calling up Dwayne's bodyguards/meat shields in certain gunplay-intensive missions like the bank heist.

 

And the thing is - you don't really have to do any of that friend stuff if you don't really want to. You can turn the phone off and be totally free to screw around until you go blind from looking at a screen for too long or your game system burns up. Roman and Dwayne are not even necessary for 100% completion, and if you have no interest in the more extraneous things in GTA then 100% completion probably isn't a desirable goal for you anyway. That stuff is in there to give you something to do besides the minimum necessary to complete the game. And for that, it's great.

"You tell me exactly what you want, and I'll explain to you very carefully why it cannot be."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading the last few posts made me think of another aspect of freedom in games and in GTA.

 

I am going to assert that, as the GTA / RDR / LA Noire / Max Payne 3 game stories have become more cinematic (the Houser's apparent obsession) and story-driven, they have restricted our freedom to live inside the character with our own mind and our own intent and will. We're just watching.

 

It's like we are riding on the rails of the game script, and this aspect makes it almost like a linear game. This is the essential dilemma of trying to meld movies with games. One is interactive, the other is not.

 

LA Noire of course was almost completely on rails, with the nice exception that you could free-roam around the city and appreciate the beautiful design, and chase down the occasional criminal.

 

GTA IV's seriousness was a good example of script-driven restriction of the protag's personality and will. RDR also gave us an obvious template of the protag, from which it was hard to deviate. I am not just talking about moral choice in the game, but the whole idea, going back to GTA III, that the player is not too pre-colored with a certain way of being or living.

 

This leads to the more open idea of letting a little bit of Sims type freedom into GTA, and I am not talking about eating or sleeping, but about deciding how to live and act in the game - i.e. a life simulator where you can jack cars, kill at will, build empires, explore and learn and experiment, and perhaps do all this in context and competition with the entire GTAV Social Club population. Now that's freedom. That's interaction.

 

In other topics on this forum, I have said that I want less cinema and more game in my game. That is one definition of game freedom, for me.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

theworldfamous
@MM: well put. That moment with Dwayne in the car was brilliant. But I do hope they find ways to integrate friends and missions better. They were too separate. You had friends and mission givers. Once the mission giver ran out of missions he became another friend or enemy. You were either doing friend activities or missions... I think there's ways you can blend the two, and you'd kill two of the biggest gripes people have: the friends no longer feel tagged on as a distraction and getting missions will feel less like you're a pack mule for the local gallery of freaks and psychos.

Eh, I think it did just fine. There are only so many missions, so they're over quickly if you go through them quickly. And of course it has to be reconciled with events in the storyline, which is progressed through the missions. (There's another "core" GTA characteristic.)

 

You could only hang with Dwayne after you'd had the choice to kill him or Playboy X. Makes sense, because your decision beforehand would've been colored by the fact you'd been fraternizing with one of them beyond your usual GTA criminal business. Now I'd choose to whack X anyway because he was a weasel anyway and, besides, I like calling up Dwayne's bodyguards/meat shields in certain gunplay-intensive missions like the bank heist.

 

And the thing is - you don't really have to do any of that friend stuff if you don't really want to. You can turn the phone off and be totally free to screw around until you go blind from looking at a screen for too long or your game system burns up. Roman and Dwayne are not even necessary for 100% completion, and if you have no interest in the more extraneous things in GTA then 100% completion probably isn't a desirable goal for you anyway. That stuff is in there to give you something to do besides the minimum necessary to complete the game. And for that, it's great.

Yeah it made sense within the story of Niko.. that's a pretty big achievement in itself. But I'm thinking about evolving that, blurring the lines even more. Why just have self-contained missions? Why not have a couple of multi-tiered missions running at the same time. You have to kill this guy, but you also have to make quick run across town to talk to some other guy about some job you're doing next week, send a quick e-mail here and then on to the main job. It would be an interesting addition to missions, me thinks. It could flesh them out more...for instance, doing actual preparations and planning for a bankjob instead of an NPC getting in the car and going "Okay..today we're gonna rob a f*ckin bank, it's located here, there's 25 guards and this is the plan." Niko: "Okay, let's go." It's also kind of weird that right after the job, in theory, you can call them up as friend and play like air hockey without mentioning the enormous heist you pulled off the other day.

 

So, I'm thinking. Maybe you become friends first, and then go out on jobs. You can hatch the plan while drinking in a bar or some other activity. Or activities could turn into missions. Maybe your friend drinks too much and starts a barfight.

 

Think of it like this: instead of a group of mission givers and a group of friends you just have contacts that can be both at the same time. It wouldn't make much of a difference, but activities would be more fluid and it would feel more like your character is living a life and not just chasing from one icon to the next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mainland Marauder

The Sims has that freedom, but for all that which entails the rendition of real life that goes into the Sims, nobody really has any personality in the game. They speak gibberish, use the same gestures and are practically the same minus some very basic parameters that you basically determine. Like, are they artistic or mechanically inclined or whatnot.

 

GTA wasn't far off from that at first. Claude/Fido had no discernible personality. He couldn't speak. You deduced that what drove him was revenge at Catalina and Salvatore. But that was just fine in 2001, because Claude wasn't really the star of GTA3. Liberty City was. The very first 3D urban GTA environment.

 

Then in Vice you had Tommy Vercetti. After SA came out, you heard a lot of people talk about how much they missed Tommy. How no-nonsense he was compared to CJ, how he didn't take sh*t off anyone etc. The truth was Tommy was a rather shallow character too. You never learn much about him besides he was a mob lackey who did 15 years in the joint, he likes to wear Hawaiian shirts, his dad was a pressman and.....uh....he likes to take over the town and make unholy boatloads of cash, legally or illegally.

 

CJ took sh*t off people because he was the first GTA protag who had human emotions, really, such as the love of his family. He spends much of the SA storyline having his brother's fate in prison hung over his head, and the rest of it trying to gain his brother's respect. Niko stays true to his cousin despite all the trouble he causes, perhaps because Roman is the only thing he has left of what he came from that he does not fear or despise. And then he either loses that or, seemingly, a budding romance with Kate.

 

In RDR - essentially GTA on horseback - John Marston can continue to behave as an outlaw but the story invariably moves toward his upholding the law. Now it can be because the government his holding his family hostage, but before that he had a desire to leave that life because he didn't want his son around that. So yes, that definitely moved on the "rails" as it were.

 

Maybe it's a technological limitation. For a true freedom of action to be possible, you would have multiple possible storyline branches, outcomes, endings, reactions of protagonists and NPCs alike. They'd probably have to write and record eight times as much dialogue. There'd probably be missions you never play until your eighth playthrough. Who knows, the way the production schedule is getting between games maybe that would be a great thing. And that might be the future, if the industry survives that long. turn.gif

"You tell me exactly what you want, and I'll explain to you very carefully why it cannot be."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finn 7 five 11

 

 

 

 

 

 

GTAIV wasn't boring because they made it more realistic or because they changed the formula. The formula is still the same in my opinion, and it is still as ridiculous and unrealistic as ever.

 

I have been saying this for some time now, it wasn't really any more realistic, driving around a corner to get in a pay n spray isn't any better than letting the cops see you drive in there, the graphics and physics were a little bit more realistic, but it wasn't much better.

 

 

GTAIV was a little bit boring because there wasn't enough things to do.. To match what they gave us in terms of enhanced graphics and physics etc, they needed a much greater scope of activities to be consistent with the heightened sense of 'realism' that the graphics offered. That's where i believe they got the balance wrong.. It seemed to me they rushed it out before it was ready.. But let's be fair to it, it was still a good game.

 

It was a fantastic game, it was just lacking compared to San Andreas, i still enjoyed IV and i can understand the constraints that limited it in some ways.

 

 

As far as 'realism' goes, i would like them to add considerably more of it, and think there is a great deal of room for it still in the GTA world. I just want them to be selective over what they add and why.

 

Let's use IV as an example. Lil Jacob calls you up and asks you if you want to play darts or whatever.. Well that doesn't sound like much fun to me, wouldn't it be much more interesting if  Lil Jacob called you up (after the story) to tell you he is going to hit a storage warehouse in one of the industrial areas.. This could even be a text message without adding extra audio.. You then get a multi faceted mission, text will pop up on your screen, go and collect this weapon, then go and hire these goons etc, then you can pick up Jacob, who will still get to tell you his backstory as he does normally, then at the end you rob a ransom warehouses steal their generic boxes and then escape the law...

 

Doesn't that sound like more fun? And it is also more relevant to the game's theme of crime. It is also realistic, because that could happen in reality, only it''s the good, relevant, and more fun type of realism, which adds something to the game.

I like your scope on realism, it is similar to mine, i do want the game to feel more life-like, but i don't want it to be like real life.

I still want to go smash cars run people over and escape hundreds of cops, but that is believable considering the context of the game, and like you said a bunch of criminals getting together all the time just to play darts or go bowling is pretty unbelievable, i don't mind if those are still in the game, but i also want things like you suggested, friends can be like missions, and there is actually a good reason for people like me who don't enjoy bowling to go and interact with friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mainland Marauder

Criminals in the movies, and in real life for that matter, go out and do mundane things too. In fact, everyone does.

 

How many mafiosos throughout the years got whacked inside or coming out of a restaurant or a bar? No wonder it makes the movies and video games. Art imitates life.

 

 

 

"You tell me exactly what you want, and I'll explain to you very carefully why it cannot be."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

theworldfamous

 

Maybe it's a technological limitation. For a true freedom of action to be possible, you would have multiple possible storyline branches, outcomes, endings, reactions of protagonists and NPCs alike. They'd probably have to write and record eight times as much dialogue. There'd probably be missions you never play until your eighth playthrough. Who knows, the way the production schedule is getting between games maybe that would be a great thing. And that might be the future, if the industry survives that long.

 

Far Cry 2 was supposedly set up like this, on a much smaller scale. I didn't get through it far enough to really notice how it played out though. I'm afraid to truly get there is gonna take a long time.. like you say it's 8 times the work, but I doubt I would sell 8 times the copies. So unless there's some great innovation that radically speeds up game design, creating assets and that would be able to generate story on the fly we're gonna reach a ceiling where making games bigger and more detailed is just going to be too much work and too expensive to ever be profitable. And I think we're already pretty close. A big problem right now is already that only the big AAA games turn a profit and many smaller studios are forced to close down or focus on simpler platforms. That's only gonna be worse next gen, if you consider the time and money it already takes to make a game like RDR or GTA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Racecarlock for me summed it up perfectly and always does. It seems like few people on this forum actually admire what Rockstar did with the old games and realise why we found them so fun. I believe it was because of this. they were simple enough that they allowed to have the freedom we always we wanted, but not too simple that they became boring. This is my philosophy on this: if you find filling up a car so fun, jump in your car and do it in real life. Just don't chuck it on a timer in a GTA game. Same with hunger. Same with sleeping (if its not part of the save function).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mainland Marauder
This is my philosophy on this: if you find filling up a car so fun, jump in your car and do it in real life. Just don't chuck it on a timer in a GTA game. Same with hunger. Same with sleeping (if its not part of the save function).

OK.

 

Once again I just didn't find the hunger thing in SA to be that intrusive. It reset with saving, and you didn't even need to enter a restaurant to eat. There were vending machines and outdoor food vendors.

 

Sleeping was covered by saving, essentially. Which also "fed" your character.

 

As for fuel, or petrol if you prefer, I think the idea is adding an extra dimension of challenge to chases. You run out of gas, you're not going to stop and fill up. You're going to run like hell to another vehicle, steal it and go. In IV it was possible to damage your car so as to kill it without blowing it up. And you had to find something else. This is the same idea.

"You tell me exactly what you want, and I'll explain to you very carefully why it cannot be."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honest Bill

Too many replies to cover all of them..

 

But with regards to a game that is focused on the rails, versus a game which gives you freedom of imagination, well i'd say it's an incredibly hard balance to strike. Personally i like it when a character is left more ambiguous. I liked the freedom to interpret Claude however i chose, all we really knew about him was that he was ruthless and amoral. However i do accept that it was quite jarring that he couldn't speak, it came across as unrealistic, he most definitely came across as a random game character in a similar vein to the top down games.

 

Tommy was definitely very shallow, and i think you'll find, that's why so many people, uncluding myself, missed him as a protagonist, because he still gave room for interpretation of his motives and back-story. They gave you a few facts about him.. Butcher of Harwood etc etc and they made him react in certain ways

 

"You work for me now"

"I work for money"

 

That's the kind of freelancer who didn't care about anything that the original games all tried to portray, while it didn't impose much else on you, his opinions and emotions (except anger) weren't forced on you too often and i like that to an extent.

 

CJ though, well i can see the benefit of having the story and characters focused and linear, of course the advantages being you can create an emotional bond to the characters and the story can keep a certain pace which can be manipulated. I just felt that CJ's motives were totally unbelievable and his everything felt inconsistent. I didn't believe in him, and i didn't have room to interpret him in my own way. I was kind of stuck with this guy who i didn't believe. On the other side of the coin, i was totally free to customise him visually, which i suppose softened the blow a little bit, and the game had immense variety which was another bonus, but i still felt like i was controlling a cartoon character.

 

With Niko, they did add a backstory which was a great idea, and even the supporting cast get a little bit of character development which was a good thing. But again, as with CJ, i found Niko's character inconsistent and some of his actions were unbelievable, and yet there was no room at all to interpret him the way i wanted.. I mean, sure, i could choose to be merciful or not on a few occasions, but overall i felt Niko couldn't really decide whether he was a reasonable, level headed guy, or in fact a complete psycho, it felt inconsistent. But it suffered because they did try to pull characters together neatly but they didn't really pull it off in my opinion, and the storyline had no focus or pacing.

 

As was said above about multi-tiered missions, that is exactly the kind of thing i look for in games. I don't really like the linearity, i want to affect the game world in my own way, form my own motives, and my own characters. It's something which would be hard to accomplish, while keeping a focused and linear story, but i'm convinced it could be done

 

You only need to look at Red Dead Redemption for some great concepts. It had a reasonably well focused story, but i felt the most potential was in the randomly generated content. like the bounties and random occurrences, it's quite easy to see that if you gave these concepts a bit more focus and strung them together, with careful use of context, you could give all these actions a wider purpose which is tied up with the story and gives your character continued motivation after the main story arc.

 

Oh and You're right, the hunger thing in SA wasn't that intrusive, and it's detractors (including myself) have been guilty of a fair bit of embellishment, however, what did it add to the game? And i'm not talking about eating, i'm talking about hunger.. I just can't see what was interesting or fun or challenging about it..

Edited by Honest Bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too many replies to cover all of them..

 

But with regards to a game that is focused on the rails, versus a game which gives you freedom of imagination, well i'd say it's an incredibly hard balance to strike. Personally i like it when a character is left more ambiguous. I liked the freedom to interpret Claude however i chose, all we really knew about him was that he was ruthless and amoral. However i do accept that it was quite jarring that he couldn't speak, it came across as unrealistic, he most definitely came across as a random game character in a similar vein to the top down games.

 

Tommy was definitely very shallow, and i think you'll find, that's why so many people, uncluding myself, missed him as a protagonist, because he still gave room for interpretation of his motives and back-story. They gave you a few facts about him.. Butcher of Harwood etc etc and they made him react in certain ways

 

"You work for me now"

"I work for money"

 

That's the kind of freelancer who didn't care about anything that the original games all tried to portray, while it didn't impose much else on you, his opinions and emotions (except anger) weren't forced on you too often and i like that to an extent.

 

CJ though, well i can see the benefit of having the story and characters focused and linear, of course the advantages being you can create an emotional bond to the characters and the story can keep a certain pace which can be manipulated. I just felt that CJ's motives were totally unbelievable and his everything felt inconsistent. I didn't believe in him, and i didn't have room to interpret him in my own way. I was kind of stuck with this guy who i didn't believe. On the other side of the coin, i was totally free to customise him visually, which i suppose softened the blow a little bit, and the game had immense variety which was another bonus, but i still felt like i was controlling a cartoon character.

 

With Niko, they did add a backstory which was a great idea, and even the supporting cast get a little bit of character development which was a good thing. But again, as with CJ, i found Niko's character inconsistent and some of his actions were unbelievable, and yet there was no room at all to interpret him the way i wanted.. I mean, sure, i could choose to be merciful or not on a few occasions, but overall i felt Niko couldn't really decide whether he was a reasonable, level headed guy, or in fact a complete psycho, it felt inconsistent. But it suffered because they did try to pull characters together neatly but they didn't really pull it off in my opinion, and the storyline had no focus or pacing.

 

As was said above about multi-tiered missions, that is exactly the kind of thing i look for in games. I don't really like the linearity, i want to affect the game world in my own way, form my own motives, and my own characters. It's something which would be hard to accomplish, while keeping a focused and linear story, but i'm convinced it could be done

 

You only need to look at Red Dead Redemption for some great concepts. It had a reasonably well focused story, but i felt the most potential was in the randomly generated content. like the bounties and random occurrences, it's quite easy to see that if you gave these concepts a bit more focus and strung them together, with careful use of context, you could give all these actions a wider purpose which is tied up with the story and gives your character continued motivation after the main story arc.

 

Oh and You're right, the hunger thing in SA wasn't that intrusive, and it's detractors (including myself) have been guilty of a fair bit of embellishment, however, what did it add to the game? And i'm not talking about eating, i'm talking about hunger.. I just can't see what was interesting or fun or challenging about it..

If you ate too much you ran the risk of dying. Maybe Rockstar thought it only made sense that doing the complete opposite would cause you to die as well? Like MainlandMarauder, hunger never bothered me either because I save frequently and plus usually I have my CJ with around 15-25% fat.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honest Bill

 

If you ate too much you ran the risk of dying. Maybe Rockstar thought it only made sense that doing the complete opposite would cause you to die as well? Like MainlandMarauder, hunger never bothered me either because I save frequently and plus usually I have my CJ with around 15-25% fat.

I concede that it didn't really bother me too much, however i still can't see how that makes for a good feature. Something being not that annoying is not a good reason to include it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mainland Marauder
the hunger thing in SA.....what did it add to the game?

Well, let's expand it to the whole food/muscle/fat mechanic. What did it add? Oh, another dimension to character customization which, in the context of your post, you should've been thrilled about. You could have Carl Johnson the musclebound enforcer of Grove Street, Carl Johnson the obese enforcer of Cluckin' Bell or Carl Johnson the average homeboy from the 'hood. And each one plays just slightly differently and with their own lines of dialogue.

 

You could do a lot of interpretation with Claude, sure, but how many opportunities did you have in GTA3 to be anything besides cold and ruthless? There weren't a whole lot of choices in the courses of action you took. The most control you had, really, was when you made sure to get everything you needed out of Portland before you left it because the shotgun-toting Leones were going to make mincemeat of you if you showed your face around St. Mark's again.

 

Niko's personality was a little more hardwired but that was the cost of developing a coherent story around him. Which goes back to my previous statement about what's involved in making games and multiple outcomes. You can only code so many into a game.

 

I don't know if you do RPGs at all, but if you do you'd get this - it's a bit like playing a role-playing video game and expecting the same sort of open-endedness that came with oldschool pen-and-paper Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. A good DM would be able to create variables in a basic story sketch to accomodate the choices the player characters make. In the video game, you can be given this choice or that choice but it's going to be the same two or three outcomes, and most of the time that's just two different paths to the same general destination as far as the overall plot goes. Maybe we'll get there one day, but we're not there and it's pretty far out there to think of what it would take on top of the current production workload of a GTA game.

"You tell me exactly what you want, and I'll explain to you very carefully why it cannot be."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honest Bill

You skirted my question there.. The eating i said i'm fine with, the bodybuilding fat etc... the hunger thing though.. What did it add?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mainland Marauder

Read the first paragraph. You either agree with it or you don't.

"You tell me exactly what you want, and I'll explain to you very carefully why it cannot be."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honest Bill
Read the first paragraph. You either agree with it or you don't.

All of that was possible without the hunger thing.. You say i must take it as a package, but i say, weed out the irritating bits and leave the stuff that adds to the game.. No hunger meter or slow death mechanic was necessary to achieve all that stuff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biggie Deaf

I do understand the worries of making a game too demanding, but these things like hunger, sleep and fuel have been used in recient video games in a way that did not hinder gameplay.

 

Fuel - Mafia 2

 

There was fuel useage in Mafia 2. How did it effect gameplay? I ran outta fuel because I wanted to see what would happen. I have actually beat the game, more than once, without having to refill. What did car washes do for gameplay in GTA 4? Not a got damn thing. It just gave you the same feeling you get when you wash your car in real life. Fuel can EASLY be put in and used correctly and NOT hinder gameplay.

 

Hijacking car mini game - Mafia 2

 

Let me put it like this: You would have more apprication(spelling?) for that Money Green Infernus that you had to pop the lock and hotwire. Not every car in Mafia 2 you had to do this for. Just parked cars. If your on the run, you can easily steal a car that is being driven, or just like it is in GTA 4, mash the associated button to slopply, but effectivly quickly steal the car.

 

Sleep - GTA III - GTA 4

 

....save point. 'Nuff said.

 

Hunger - GTA SA

 

The only time you had to change your appearence and it mattered was to impress females. You would get hurt so much in the game, that you would actually eat on a regular basis that you would rarely get hunger pains...and of course, if you don't want it, cheat codes!

 

Police - Mafia 2

 

Well, this is a iffy subject, but there is a thread on here that pretty much has a sure fire way of working and not being a hinderance, so I won't dip into that.

 

 

GTA has evolved. There are only a few elements that remain thru all series: Go where you want. Drive what you want. Do missions when you want. Do what YOU want to do. Alot of games have similar properties, but its just like ice cream: Vanilla ice cream is vanilla ice cream, but when you add a banana, a cherry, chocolate sauce and some nuts, you got a banana split.

 

GTA is a banana split; but the thing is, not everyone likes banana split, so some people will say "I don't like nuts," or "I don't like chocolate." But if it brings out the full flavor of it, the reason why it is made like that is understandable. If you don't like it, make your own, or don't eat it. Same thing with GTA, if you don't like the ingredients that made it, play another game that has what you want. Or, do like some developers do, and make your own.

 

...just a couple pennies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biggie Deaf
Read the first paragraph. You either agree with it or you don't.

All of that was possible without the hunger thing.. You say i must take it as a package, but i say, weed out the irritating bits and leave the stuff that adds to the game.. No hunger meter or slow death mechanic was necessary to achieve all that stuff

If you wanted to be fat, you had to eat alot right? In order to STAY fat, you have to eat alot, right? If you don't eat, you lose weight. So to keep the fatness alive, eat, or you'll lose weight. That what the hunger did for gameplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.