Jump to content

The evolution of GTA.


Mainland Marauder

Recommended Posts

Smokin Aces
OK...think of it like this. Pretend for a second Rockstar was building houses instead of making games.

 

When Rockstar - or then, DMA - made the first GTA back in 1997, they laid the foundation on a small, modest house. Then they added to it with GTA2. They figured that was a pretty good start to something.

 

With GTA3, they poured a new foundation and started building a brand new, even bigger house, then added onto it a couple times with Vice and SA. It had all the bells and whistles you could think of, but then there was nothing else they could do with what they had. Time to start over.

 

And with IV, they started over again on a new house. It wasn't just a matter of carrying pieces of SA or Vice over. Everything's on new hardware, new engine, new everything. Built from scratch from the ground up. I realize this isn't good enough for some people, but what you became accustomed to in GTA: San Andreas had been a work in progress for over three years, with two previous editions for finetuning. With IV they had a shorter time with new hardware they'd never worked on before. And unlike the first game in the last gen, where there were no expectations going in and it became a surprise left-field smash - there were lots and lots of expectations here and that's going to unfortunately be IV's epitaph in the series going in. People expected way too much without taking technical aspects into account. I don't think gamers, on average, think much of that. They just want and expect. Well, they pushed back the release of IV, ostensibly to bugfixed. Rockstar did not get where they are releasing buggy, half-baked games. They're one of the last ones in the business putting quality over quantity and maybe that's why we're here four years later still waiting for the next game in the flagship series.

 

V will be the next addition to that new house Rockstar started building.

I sure hope so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, GTA is an every game,

 

The reason GTA is made is because by making GTA, you make everything except that one special feature that sells any other game. You can make any rockstar game by leaving things out of GTA and adding one more unique thing, that also tends to carry back into the next gta. I doubt we will see bullet time obviously, that's max payne all the way, but manhunt executions in sa, etc etc.

 

GTA is the money maker: Sex, drugs, guns, crime, rock and roll, sells.

 

Yes, it is a best-in-class, triple aaa, well loved series (in both development and players), but it is a game made to do everything any other game does, I think.

AlQ6bG7.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mainland Marauder

Rockstar's franchises have a way of drawing from one another. SA came about shortly after Manhunt and incorporated some of its mechanics.

 

I think one you will see influence V is Red Dead Redemption. Would not be surprised if you have a health system more like that, you can heal fully or perhaps partially on your own. Maybe you heal to half life and you need a food item or a first aid kit? And perhaps you could have an inventory of these items. You can stop at Burger Shot but take the burger to go, then you have it in your stock for later. Much like the snake oil and chewing tobacco in RDR. Bullet time? It's not foreign to GTA. Remember the adrenaline pills? I'd have loved to go into Dead Eye during a few IV missions if I had the choice. The bank heist, that mission in the burned out hospital scoring Elizabeta's dope, and the final "Revenge" segment come to mind.

 

There have been other releases on the new hardware that work out some of the rough edges. If you're not progressing, you're regressing. Rockstar did not progress. It pushed one envelope as far as it would go, then decided it was time to push a new envelope. IV was the new one. With V it's the same one going further.

"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

If I am not mistaken this topic is to envoke discussion in regards to the genres that GTA can be categorized as and how taking features from different genres is good or bad.

 

I think that GTA should go as in depth as possible. Anything that doesnt take away from what is already there is an improvement. If GTA was a current day city based verion of skyrim I think it would be f*cking awesome. You want to talk about a living breathing city. Imagine being able to talk to every pedestrian. Imagine buying and selling rare items you find throughout the city.

 

Most people dont want extra in depth features to be added because they think it will take attention away from other features which is a good point. But if it didnt I say why not. Here are the things I would like V to include from other genres/games

 

Free running ability like in AC. Some kind of skill that you have to build up though.

 

Completely customizable cars and vehicles. Paint, body work, hydraulics, engine, sound system. As long as it affects the car somehow I think it should be included.

 

Fully customizable weapons like in Army of Two. Scopes, Silencers, and even gold plating.

 

Property management. Buy property and put work into it. Then sell it when its value raises. Sim City or Not, I dont see how this could hurt the game

ShnePmW.jpg?5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can accept your description of GTA IV, but it's just that R* didn't really let the people know that ahead of time. That's where I became dissapointed.

 

But back on the main topic. I do expect to see R* use the other game ideas and technologies as you mentioned. Considering that we have seen GTA V script in Max Payne 3, it is like a test run of things to come. It's their way of trimming the fat. V has had a lot of time to simmer, whether production started weeks after IV or not, I'm sure this has all been floating around the Houser's heads. If they add new genre features I'd be happy to see that they are making an effort to progess, if they don't attempt new things then it will seem like a regression. I'm sure some people where scared of the ideas added throughout the III era but it all worked out. I'd expect the same here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, great discussion, more new thoughts. And I appreciate people's expansions on my thoughts about the game script and story locking in the protag's character. Those comments, plus the multi-tier missions idea, plus Honest Bill's observation that creating a game without locking in the storyline is very difficult, makes me think of one more mode, partly already suggested by others in the thread.

 

What if all of the story is in the characters that the protag meets along the way and in the city itself, and the protag has no backstory? That still leaves plenty of creative scripting for the Housers. Maybe even more, since they don't have to concentrate on a complete, consistent, continuous frontstory for the protag and they can spend more time fleshing out the various nuts that the protag meets along the way. The GTAs already have plenty of that.

 

So, no opening scene to set the stage; the player just shows up, even more rootless than Claude, just a generic "player," an avatar or portal for the real life player holding the control pad. Maybe before the game starts, you can choose to customize your avatar's appearance at the beginning, kind of like GTA IV multiplayer, where it's just a unique look, but not symbolically tied to anything in the game. Not saying that this is the way the game should be or might be, but just expounding on a "what-if" bit of musing.

 

Then, you start out exploring the world. You learn what you can do. Of course you can do all the usual GTA things. Some icons appear on your radar, which look like places that it might be interesting to visit. A lot of these places are characters or events, which trigger cutscenes with lots of good writing and story, that describe situations where it becomes clear that some present or future action on part of the protag would make a difference. The characters playing out these stories can be as rich as the scriptwriters want them to be. I kind of think the narration in the GTAV Trailer is such an example of some featured characters story/monologue.

 

Since the protag is not directly being coerced or ordered around, he/she feels more freedom and free will. The story of the city and its conflicts and possibilities, present lures for the player to decide to pursue or not.

 

Anyway, these characters or situations that the protag comes across do not always directly trigger missions, but they make it clear that there are other characters and resources for the player to interact with, and some goals (perhaps multiple and conflicting goals) start to shape up. In terms of the multi-tier mission concept, Rockstar could build up missions out of several elements that have to be brought together by the protag in order to successfully accomplish something, if and when he/she choses to.

 

But there are a certain number of resources that have to be set up, in order to complete the requirements for the mission to go forward, where the player must pull together several elements that the game logic recognizes as sufficient to allow execution or achievement of an objective. It may be (should be) that this collection is not exact, but is a scored metric that makes success more likely as more of the right resources or previous goals have been achieved.

 

Bottom line, the process of the protag putting together the essential elements to achieve certain transformational goals (more less corresponding to a series of accomplished missions in the previous GTAs) could be some high powered combination of random-seeming encounters (that are not really random but are essentially connected) and drawn out, detailed, progressively informative cutscenes with rich characters or groups, and mutli-tier, mutli-element mission construction. If done right, potentially there could be such a large number of permutations of these constructed missions/goals, that they could just keep appearing, in variations, for long term replay value. Of course there would still be villains that evolve and need to be taken down in big boss fights, we would still need that smile.gif

 

True, this kind of game would be hard to design, and if done wrong it would come out like LA Noire, with its formulaic elements of each case glaringly obvious, like an HD version of CLUE. Don't want that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ex Hellraiser

@OP,

 

Thank you for your input tounge.gif

 

Every single person on here (most) thinks a new feature instantly should be shot down, because it"wouldn't be GTA."

 

Silencer on a gun-"hurr teh CoD games"

 

Ability to go prone-"belongs to teh FPS" "GTA isn't a stealth game"

 

hurr da durr

 

If GTA were to have never been innovative and added new features, we would still be top-down...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Racecarlock

I would like simulated rides from RCT3 and No limits coaster. They could put knotts berry farm in the game. I like roller coasters.

 

And if we're talking about genre crossing, well, how about some space ship combat from freespace 2? I know it would be totally unrealistic, but it would also be awesome.

 

I'm serious on both of these suggestions, though more on the amusement park one.

 

P.S @Marauder Look I know you like discussing stuff on here but there is a topic called "Cheap designer handbags" on the front page of the forum. Please do your duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mainland Marauder
If I am not mistaken this topic is to envoke discussion in regards to the genres that GTA can be categorized as and how taking features from different genres is good or bad.

I have to say it's kind of evolved. Maybe think of it as less of a "topic" but a theme. What makes the series what it is and specifically, how it shapes what our vision of V should be. I thought this would be a nice little curveball in the repertoire we have in this section, which by far is the busiest around these days.

 

I'll probably think of a more accurate title (suggestions are welcome) and put it up there, maybe with what I posted above into the OP. That way there's less mistaking and people know what they're getting.

 

On that thought...

 

 

I can accept your description of GTA IV, but it's just that R* didn't really let the people know that ahead of time. That's where I became dissapointed.

 

OK, I suppose I can understand that.

 

Rockstar is usually very nonspecific on such details of "this will be in the game" vs. "this won't be." And in any case game makers don't generally talk about what's not going to be in a game.

 

The trailer didn't lie though - this time, things really were different. The different in V will be in more variety. Of everything. And Los Santos is as solid a choice as any for a backdrop. That said, I'm very happy with this move over going back to Vice, as unpopular as that might be. I dig VC too but I'm actually happy with leaving Miami in the last gen. It's not the 80s anymore, going back to it just smells rehash-reca$h to me and 2010s Florida is just not that interesting. I was hoping for an empty foreclosed condo demolition minigame if it was to go that way.

"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

Death2Drugs

I always noticed that when a topic about weapons would start people say "oooh this is not call of duty now gtfo". FPS, response you get: "ooh this is not cod gta is tps now gtfo". Topic about better light bars, occasional troll/dick comes in "gta will never care about cops so stfu". God, these posts get more and more annoying and most of these aren't constructive in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Zoidberg

I really hope GTA:V comes out as great as most people say it would be like. I really do think, this GTA:V is the make or break title that will ensure Rockstar's future. They've certainly wowed us with the IV title, it being a huge leap from III, SA and VC. Only one can imagine how they'll top the current title with their next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mainland Marauder
I always noticed that when a topic about weapons would start people say "oooh this is not call of duty now gtfo". FPS, response you get: "ooh this is not cod gta is tps now gtfo". Topic about better light bars, occasional troll/dick comes in "gta will never care about cops so stfu". God, these posts get more and more annoying and most of these aren't constructive in any way.

 

 

Cool take, and that's exactly what this was intended to be an alternative to. One wonders if these people are just unable to actually put something behind a statement that goes beyond "no (x)" or "no (y)" or if they're just trolling.

 

Dr. Z, I think V has ramifications far beyond Rockstar itself. Console gaming is in an iffy spot right now. Though the PS3 could maybe have another release left in it. It's kind of like where the SNES and Sega Mega Drive/Genesis were around 1995 or so. Except the next generation's economic feasibility is really questionable to me if the last round was any indication. It took four years for Sony to break even on the PS3. Traditionally that's close to an entire hardware cycle. Microsoft is turning profit on each 360 sold and has for awhile, but it's getting pretty long in the tooth now. And MS took a huge bath on the first Xbox.

"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

 

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.

Definitely not the same idea. The car damage in IV was avoidable by not hitting a car in car chases. If fuel was implemented, player skill is not a factor in its depletion and hence not avoidable. That's the main issue. Its about choices and not restrictions.

 

I'm all for new features. In fact that's the reason I found IV dull in some areas compared to SA. I want car customisation, weapon customisation, planes; you name it. But all these features are passive and do not force the player to complete them. They are there for the player to enjoy and will: freedom. Have a gas filling animation. Have an eating animation. But for the love of god don't make it compulsory. Doing so would take away the freedom, the sandboxy nature which is the essence of Grand Theft Auto.

Edited by mdr279
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mainland Marauder

I bet player skill will separate the ones who can get over into a new vehicle and those who can't.

 

Hell, I'll take one of those nice shiny police Enforcers and have a new armor recharge. Hope the gas mileage is better than it looks on those things, hm?

"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

 

I bet player skill will separate the ones who can get over into a new vehicle and those who can't.

 

Hell, I'll take one of those nice shiny police Enforcers and have a new armor recharge. Hope the gas mileage is better than it looks on those things, hm?

Not always. Do you ever remember having your car trashed in VC, SA and IV while on 6 star because it got beat up. And then you had to get out and run around trying to find a non-existent car because the game doesn't spawn anything on those high stars (more-so in III era games but this will apply to V as the game won't always spawn civilian cars in the country). This was fine in VC and SA because 1) you knew it was your fault because of your driving 2) you could run fast in those games to find cover. In V however, you won't be able to run away like you could do because its more realistic and plus there's always the possible of those moments which any GTA players knows what I'm talking about where there are no cars in sight and the cops are beating the f*ck down on you. That's fine if you created the situation from your own mishap or did it by will, but having the game forcing to do it by running out of fuel is purely stupid and crap. That's not a measure of skill. It's a measure of luck. A measure of skill is who can avoid the situation by not trashing their car in a chase, not who cannot run out of fuel (which is completely involuntary).

 

 

Actually instead of having fuel as a gameplay mechanic how about having to pay your bills every week as a gameplay mechanic. Just imagine HOW much fun that would be. Being able to dial the companies number and pay the bills and mess with the automated voice. Or go into a TW@ and do it there. Or go into a post office and do it there.

No that's a ridiculously sh*t idea; just like fuel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troll Proof

 

Rockstar's franchises have a way of drawing from one another. SA came about shortly after Manhunt and incorporated some of its mechanics.

 

I think one you will see influence V is Red Dead Redemption. Would not be surprised if you have a health system more like that, you can heal fully or perhaps partially on your own. Maybe you heal to half life and you need a food item or a first aid kit? And perhaps you could have an inventory of these items. You can stop at Burger Shot but take the burger to go, then you have it in your stock for later. Much like the snake oil and chewing tobacco in RDR. Bullet time? It's not foreign to GTA. Remember the adrenaline pills? I'd have loved to go into Dead Eye during a few IV missions if I had the choice. The bank heist, that mission in the burned out hospital scoring Elizabeta's dope, and the final "Revenge" segment come to mind.

 

There have been other releases on the new hardware that work out some of the rough edges. If you're not progressing, you're regressing. Rockstar did not progress. It pushed one envelope as far as it would go, then decided it was time to push a new envelope. IV was the new one. With V it's the same one going further.

 

Good post. I also made a thread of an inventory sys. kind of like RDR, where you can buy and sell, and store food to heal in the absence of health. Even with "drugs" R* can incorporate bullet time and other power ups that can enhance gameplay, or used as a commodity. I think even elements from MP3 will appear in V as well, whether graphical, animational or gameplay related; R* is keyed in on continual improvement and achieving its vision of their product. I consider IV the best GTA, but its new GTA direction can be misinterpreted, which I would argue is the reason for its smug reception by a group of avid GTAers.

 

The GTA series isn't limited to a sandbox or open-world genre, GTA has been incorporating RPG/Lifestyle elements into the game. In fact, I would argue that since Vice City, GTA is primarily atmospherically driven, more cinematic and immersive than gameplay oriented. For example, gun play in IV sucks, but seeing the fictional companies, spoofs and brands in the GTA universe is more than enough to satisfy me. Just looking back at the VC/SA websites is enough validation that GTA isn't just a mash of shoot em up/ racing/adventure, GTA to me is a solution of cinema, classic video game noir and real life truths. GTA has the story lines, plot twists along with the pick up and play ability and enough real world that creates a gaming experience bar none.

 

Hopefully V is the next step to break out of the mold that we give GTA, just like SA pinned the series as over the top, which led to poor knockoffs like SR, hopefully V will be the complete rendering of R*'s intent (whatever that meant)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honest Bill

I suppose at the crux of the argument, is that people have different ideas of what GTA means, and that different aspects of it, define what it is to each of us and why we enjoy it so much.

 

The kind of thing that Saintsrow was talking about in his post is to me, where i always wanted to see gaming going.. Put you in an open world that gives you enough tools to implement your own stories in the way that you choose.. At least to an extent.. I don't want a game without any structured mission content, i just want a total overhaul of traditional structure to allow more freedom. To me personally, that would be the epitome of what GTA is about.

 

I do appreciate that others don't feel the same way, or don't share that vision. So all i can do is try to be as objective as possible when considering which features i feel should or shouldn't be added. And what that means to me, is what can add fun or depth or interest to the game.

 

I can kind of see where some people are coming from with regards to fuel, they feel that it provides an extra challenge if you are being chased by the police and you run out of fuel, then you have to scramble to a new car.. However, i don't think it will pan out like that at all, i think that after the first time that happened, you would just develop a routine whereby you went and filled up constantly to avoid this situation, thus turning it in to a minor inconvenience at best. The novelty would wear off very quickly and we would be left with something pointless which doesn't really add to the gameplay.

 

Again i'll reiterate that i know some people will enjoy going to the petrol station and filling up, which is why i say it's a fair compromise to include the ability to do it, and the animation, but remove the inconvenient part from it.

 

The things is that many people are unable to accept that because they personally want a feature in, it doesn't mean that everyone else should be forced to use it. A few decent suggestions have been made in the gas topic which are just ignored.. One guy suggested to make the car perform slightly better after filling it up. This means it has a purpose, people have incentive to do it, those who like the feature will gain from it, and i won't have to bother if i don't want to... In fact i would probably even use it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding fuel, i think its a realistic feature that makes sense in the context of the game. and you've already provided plenty of examples in this thread already. I mean, how is it any differente from having limited ammo in weapons? when you run out of ammo, you need to find some more. you're in a chase and run out of fuel, go find some other car (with the logical difference that this WILL ONLY HAPPEN IN VERY RARE OCCASIONS). Don't you guys like that sort of random events or circumstances in GTA? don't they make playing every mission feel different? Going back to the original idea of the thread, I think that is part of what defines GTA games for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Racecarlock

I just want to fly planes and gamble and drive without having to stop for gas.

 

I tried stopping for gas in mafia II. It was boring. I just sat there while some guy filled up the tank and tried to talk to me about the weather. This is not what GTA should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

theworldfamous
I just want to fly planes and gamble and drive without having to stop for gas.

 

I tried stopping for gas in mafia II. It was boring. I just sat there while some guy filled up the tank and tried to talk to me about the weather. This is not what GTA should be.

Damn straight.. and you couldn't even punch him in the face afterwards. Mafia II was a masterclass in how not to make an openworld game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mainland Marauder
I don't want a game without any structured mission content. i just want a total overhaul of traditional structure to allow more freedom. To me personally, that would be the epitome of what GTA is about.

And then there's yet another delicate balance. It's not easy to have a structured free form. Structures tend to be rigid.

 

The mission-based model still moves the story along on a rail. If it were feasible with voice acting, memory and whatever other concerns - instead of a singular rail you might have a network of rails where there are multiple paths and outcomes based on choices you make.

 

Consider when your choices kill one character or another, as we saw in IV. This might kill off one mission strand and start another, and you'd have to play through multiple times to see them all. For the purposes of 100% completion you might have it where for completion you must pass one of the mission strands - or the new definition of 100% completion is having done everything there is in the game, even if it's not on one single run.

 

Maybe you'd even have a situation where, temporarily or permanently based on choices, you might take over another character mid-game. Say you made a choice that killed your guy and next thing you know, you're his brother. A little bit like Jack and John Marston.

"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

packardcaribien
I don't want a game without any structured mission content. i just want a total overhaul of traditional structure to allow more freedom. To me personally, that would be the epitome of what GTA is about.

And then there's yet another delicate balance. It's not easy to have a structured free form. Structures tend to be rigid.

 

The mission-based model still moves the story along on a rail. If it were feasible with voice acting, memory and whatever other concerns - instead of a singular rail you might have a network of rails where there are multiple paths and outcomes based on choices you make.

 

Consider when your choices kill one character or another, as we saw in IV. This might kill off one mission strand and start another, and you'd have to play through multiple times to see them all. For the purposes of 100% completion you might have it where for completion you must pass one of the mission strands - or the new definition of 100% completion is having done everything there is in the game, even if it's not on one single run.

 

Maybe you'd even have a situation where, temporarily or permanently based on choices, you might take over another character mid-game. Say you made a choice that killed your guy and next thing you know, you're his brother. A little bit like Jack and John Marston.

I can see multiple mission strands, but I don't think changing characters would be very GTA. That would make purchasing property or collecting cars or getting new clothes irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mainland Marauder
I can see multiple mission strands, but I don't think changing characters would be very GTA. That would make purchasing property or collecting cars or getting new clothes irrelevant.

Nobody seemed to mind that all of John's RDR stuff magically migrated seamlessly over to Jack, and you still had a bit of storyline to finish. So I just threw that out there as a possible concept.

"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

Racecarlock
I can see multiple mission strands, but I don't think changing characters would be very GTA. That would make purchasing property or collecting cars or getting new clothes irrelevant.

Nobody seemed to mind that all of John's RDR stuff magically migrated seamlessly over to Jack, and you still had a bit of storyline to finish. So I just threw that out there as a possible concept.

I didn't mind that jack got all of his material possessions, but how the hell does honor and fame transfer over? Just something to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mainland Marauder
I can see multiple mission strands, but I don't think changing characters would be very GTA. That would make purchasing property or collecting cars or getting new clothes irrelevant.

Nobody seemed to mind that all of John's RDR stuff magically migrated seamlessly over to Jack, and you still had a bit of storyline to finish. So I just threw that out there as a possible concept.

I didn't mind that jack got all of his material possessions, but how the hell does honor and fame transfer over? Just something to think about.

I don't know, the same way you survive getting shot in the head twice or driving 120 mph into an oncoming tractor trailer?

 

Really doubt we'd actually see protagonists changing in game but if you really wanted freedom of choice in the storyline, well, some choices are fatal.

"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

Racecarlock

I want martial arts in GTA, but according to some other guy I should just get sleeping dogs for that. Also he called me a dolt because intelligence insults still work as debate around here. Yes, I've insulted intelligence before but I've learned not to do that because that never pushes the debate forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mainland Marauder

Yeah, I don't care for that and, actually, I didn't see a report about it (I take this was something recent?) so send one if that ever happens. I'm glad we've not had that in here and you're very much correct.

 

I've been a big proponent of expanding martial arts in GTA. I want to be able to disarm an enemy with my bare hands without having to knock him down and curbstomp him. Be able to steal it for yourself. You don't even have to actually kill him afterwards. I'd like to be able to either join an MMA league and/or an underground fight club. Also, be able to improvise melee weapons out of the environment. Say you can break a section of pipe off the back of a building or you find a plank of wood near a dumpster.

 

You could encourage a whole new style of play which, of course, would be optional. There'd still be a lot of guns. But you'd essentially have a new way to play the game. See how far and what you can do in the game using only your bare hands and/or melee weapons.

 

There might even be ways where taking this approach rather than going in Rambo with AKs and grenades could influence the story, if even in a relatively minor detail.

 

There are a lot of things that can be incorporated into the game without taking away the primary ways people are used to playing. It's good to have multiple methods. It only helps replay value, for one. We're going on year five since the last release. They should be worth playing several times if this is the way of the future.

"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

Rockstar20124

This is a great intelligent topic cookie.gif

 

Personally, I consider GTA to be a melting pot of genres similar to the cultures in the huge metropol cities which are actually the main stars of the GTA games.

 

Also, many years from now GTA will be considered the most influential ancient videogame series predecessor of Virtual Reality cool.gif When I look at GTA IV Icenhancer PC mods videos I already at times get a Vanilla Sky and The Matrix dream feeling biggrin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snake Without a Tongue

I feel like GTA has regressed since SA. Not because of the absence of planes, etc. But because it seemed R* was up for trying new things. Namely, the RPG element. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, it was just new. There's plenty of room for innovation in GTA, but I have the creeping feeling that R* is playing everything conservative for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the franchise and that worries me.

 

I personally would like to see the basic elements of GTA more fleshed out. Tighter fighting and shooting mechanics, more focus on car handling, etc. I feel like with this gen we're all too excited just to see the new versions of maps. When GTA becomes "just a sandbox" game it lends credibility to flash in the pan games like Saints Row.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I feel like GTA has regressed since SA. Not because of the absence of planes, etc. But because it seemed R* was up for trying new things. Namely, the RPG element. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, it was just new. There's plenty of room for innovation in GTA, but I have the creeping feeling that R* is playing everything conservative for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the franchise and that worries me.

 

I personally would like to see the basic elements of GTA more fleshed out. Tighter fighting and shooting mechanics, more focus on car handling, etc. I feel like with this gen we're all too excited just to see the new versions of maps. When GTA becomes "just a sandbox" game it lends credibility to flash in the pan games like Saints Row.

I had not considered that aspect, GTA-SA "trying new things," but it makes now that you have written it here. That's what is was. Good point. That kind of richness in HD would be mind-blowing. I hope that GTAV represents a return to this rich experimental element of open world gaming, just as you describe.

 

But I am also afraid, as you state, that these big game productions have as much at stake financially as big blockbuster movies, and that the corporate decisionmaking process could certainly tend to push down the experimentation. I sure hope not.

 

@Rockstar20124: Good points, I also consider the GTA's in the same realm as other totally open-world virtual reality / virtual world environments. Sometimes I forget which virtual world I am in, and then I realize I am in GTA and I can't sit down on the park bench...

 

When I look at GTA IV Icenhancer PC mods videos I already at times get a Vanilla Sky and The Matrix dream feeling 

Maybe Rockstar should license "the woman in red" from Matrix and have her walking down the street past the player, about once every 1000 gameplay hours smile.gif

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.