What are you most worried about in GTAV?

[Sombar1]

You can have a great story, a serious story, and a fun game. It can be done. Rockstar hasn't truly ever perfected it, though. No game has ever touched perfection in that regard, especially not open-world games. But all can be done by Rockstar, as they are the only big developer devoted to creating masterpieces of games, and not making bank (Max Payne 3, anyone?)

 

I can see the GTA V story being wonderful. I can see the world being detailed and brilliant. I can see the characters being fresh and new. I can see weapons, vehicles, and toys that make it fun and interesting beyond the main story line. I can see this all done. And it can only be done by Rockstar.

 

The mood needs to be a balancing act, in my opinion. San Andreas was too silly in my opinion (missions devoted to blowing up cars with remote-controlled cars, lol) but was very acceptable for the time. For the time it was godly, especially how it laid out the bar for open-world games. It was immense, and you felt for the characters, regardless of how over the top they were. GTA IV, however, was too limiting. You weren't psychotic in the game (although Niko was). You were forced into being this homicidal madman running about committing all sorts of heinous acts. I felt bad, much of the time. Which isn't bad! But the game was pretty limited, the story did drag, and it wasn't as "fun" as San Andreas.

 

Tbogt and RDR both served as balancing acts. Tbogt gave us more toys and less depth, RDR gave us more depth and less toys. Both were huge steps, and I'll call RDR one of my favorite game until the day I die, but they can still do better.

 

It all comes down to where Rockstar wants this game to go. If they want people to notice GTA again, and to have little brats say, "let's go kills some motherf*ckers on GTA!" they could very well go in that direction. If they want the sophisticates to analyze it to hell, they could take it there as well. But what I want, and what I'm afraid of not getting, is for this to be a true GTA game, and for me not to question its place. I've only questioned two GTAs, both of the stories, simply because the tone didn't match the predecessors. I don't want this to be a heist game. I don't want this to be a silly game. I don't want this to be Mafia 3. I want this to be a Grand Theft Auto game like none other, but still on the same lines. Not San Andreas 2, or GTA IV2, but for this to be THE Grand Theft Auto game.

[DeadZombie]

Map size, not so much the size but the lay out of it, i hope its not all flat and tightly squeezed together

your good. Its in the country side. I live over here. Its not flat lol

[Chekoloco]

C´mon people....You all want a perfect game...WTF??? My concern is about the Police, Fireman, paramedics, and NPC´s AI....hope it´s better...all the rest of the game is awesome...

[DeadZombie]

I feel naturally next gen has spoiled gamers. They can not honestly just love the gameplay and how advanced it is for our time since back then. One of the best selling games on Psn network is final fantasy 7. im sure its not bought for its sweet graphics and flexibility. I believe its bought for its fine tailored storys one to be the best of all time. RockStar is no amateur at this.

[Triplehtheking]

Driving Physics... when they said it was like a "racing game", that worried me and I'll be worried until I see a gameplay video

[Squishybubs]

Overall, probably just the driving physics.

[LBYN]

While my trust in R* might put these worries to rest, I am honestly worried about the multiple protagonist deal they seem to be going with. To me, personally, I won't be able to become enveloped in one characters backstory and forward progression through the game as I would be able to with just one protagonist.

 

In GTAIV, everything that went wrong for Niko, you could, almost, personally feel his pain. His whole backstory was out there in the open for you to become engrossed in, and it made you feel connected to him as a character. With the multiple protagonists, it may become a cluttered mess as it'll just feel like you're playing a game, which is what game devs should STAY AWAY FROM, personally.

 

That's just me throwing my metaphorical hat into the ring of discussion, but that's how I feel about the matter. Again, I'm sure R* will be able to pull off the multiple protagonist deal with flying colors, but it won't feel like an experience, more or less, but just playing another game.

[KING2dor]

So we have lots of topics to satisfy our hype, but what is everyone most worried about post november info flood? Whether you don't think it'll be in at all or won't be done to your liking.

 

 

Me personally, I am hyped about V and I dont find too much worry to be had. However, I am still on edge about the amount of interiors. It is a problem I find in all open world games and it always makes me upset that I can't go inside more buildings and houses. There is always something cool and interesting about being able to look inside these places and explore. In GTAIV there were hardly any to go inside and it was pretty random where they were located. If they have maybe...I dunno, 30 or 40% in this game, then I can't say I can complain.

I completely agree! We need more interiors rockstar!

 

 

On topic: I'm worried about the Economy system and the amount of side activities..

 

 

 

But if they learned anything from red dead then this a moot point

[Signal1]

So we have lots of topics to satisfy our hype, but what is everyone most worried about post november info flood? Whether you don't think it'll be in at all or won't be done to your liking.

 

 

Me personally,  I am hyped about V and I dont find too much worry to be had. However, I am still on edge about the amount of interiors. It is a problem I find in all open world games and it always makes me upset that I can't go inside more buildings and houses. There is always something cool and interesting about being able to look inside these places and explore. In GTAIV there were hardly any to go inside and it was pretty random where they were located. If they have maybe...I dunno, 30 or 40% in this game, then I can't say I can complain.

I completely agree! We need more interiors rockstar!

 

 

On topic: I'm worried about the Economy system and the amount of side activities..

 

 

 

But if they learned anything from red dead then this a moot point

Absolutely.

 

Im worried that the economy wont be fun or vibrant.

[Intstringeger]

While my trust in R* might put these worries to rest, I am honestly worried about the multiple protagonist deal they seem to be going with. To me, personally, I won't be able to become enveloped in one characters backstory and forward progression through the game as I would be able to with just one protagonist.

 

In GTAIV, everything that went wrong for Niko, you could, almost, personally feel his pain. His whole backstory was out there in the open for you to become engrossed in, and it made you feel connected to him as a character. With the multiple protagonists, it may become a cluttered mess as it'll just feel like you're playing a game, which is what game devs should STAY AWAY FROM, personally.

 

That's just me throwing my metaphorical hat into the ring of discussion, but that's how I feel about the matter. Again, I'm sure R* will be able to pull off the multiple protagonist deal with flying colors, but it won't feel like an experience, more or less, but just playing another game.

I agree, that's something to be concerned about because, if not well done, it can ruin the game. But I honestly believe that Rockstar can pull it off. I think it's the quality of the writing that makes you connect with the characters not how much time you spend with them. For instance, I became more interested with Kelso in LA Noire in just two episodes than with CJ in the whole SA campaign.

[DeadZombie]

While my trust in R* might put these worries to rest, I am honestly worried about the multiple protagonist deal they seem to be going with. To me, personally, I won't be able to become enveloped in one characters backstory and forward progression through the game as I would be able to with just one protagonist.

 

In GTAIV, everything that went wrong for Niko, you could, almost, personally feel his pain. His whole backstory was out there in the open for you to become engrossed in, and it made you feel connected to him as a character. With the multiple protagonists, it may become a cluttered mess as it'll just feel like you're playing a game, which is what game devs should STAY AWAY FROM, personally.

 

That's just me throwing my metaphorical hat into the ring of discussion, but that's how I feel about the matter. Again, I'm sure R* will be able to pull off the multiple protagonist deal with flying colors, but it won't feel like an experience, more or less, but just playing another game.

they said in the interview that it will make you feel for every characters side. It makes you go back and forth with characters emotionally. Siding as a decision. i wouldent worry about.

[Kifflom112]

Another thing:

Not enough forests and/or not so dense forests.

 

I want to be able to camp in a dense forest, a huge forest, yet I'm worried we won't get much forest in V.

[DonkeyEatingCheese]

I am worried that it might not be stable on the consoles. GTA IV and RDR had framerate drops sometimes.

 

PC fanboys don't even bother to reply please. I don't wanna hear about how PC is great and all.

[Gtaghost22]

Nothing.

Yes, i'm not worried at all, Rockstar never dissapointed me, i fail to see how it will be any different this time, no matter what they do, i'm sure i will like it, call me a fanboy or whatever, i don't care.

This is exactly how i feel about Rockstar:

 

Rockstar make nearly every other video game seem lifeless, soulless and sub-par. They are the only reason gaming has a future.

Yeah, i think it's fair to say i'm a Rockstar fanboy.

[thatguy94]

Trevor being the only protag able to use gasoline/lighters.

I want to play whatever character I choose without limits.

 

I really hope only exclusive mini games is what differentiate the 3 characters.

exactly

[B-Dawk20]

I honestly have felt R* has never failed in the story department since it got more heavy with Vice City. Some people feel SA's is silly but I cannot disagree more. Yes, it has it's campy moments but that I feel is what GTA is supposed to have. I think that the atmosphere in GTAIV kind of took that away and I was a bit upset. I think a great balance between the two is what we need in V. And that is across the board. Gameplay, Story, etc. Maybe CJ's characterization isn't as strong as Niko's or Tommy's, but the overall plot I believe was not only fun, but also pretty decent for a 90s gangsta feel. It's not Boyz in the Hood, but it's not bad at all. Now if you don't like those type of settings, plots, and characters than that is cool, but I think objectively it was good.

 

Also, I guess another thing I am worried about, as many have stated, is the driving. I think maybe IV was a bit too boat like but I definitely am not down for NFS type of controls on cars in general, and I'm a big NFS fan lol. I think for the sports cars, maybe that is fine but I feel most cars should try to simulate normal driving like GTAIV.

[MyDog]

The protagonists. They seem too shallow and having three of them will make it harder for me to connect with them, especially after a character like Niko.

[AceRay]

I honestly have felt R* has never failed in the story department since it got more heavy with Vice City. Some people feel SA's is silly but I cannot disagree more. Yes, it has it's campy moments but that I feel is what GTA is supposed to have. I think that the atmosphere in GTAIV kind of took that away and I was a bit upset. I think a great balance between the two is what we need in V. And that is across the board. Gameplay, Story, etc. Maybe CJ's characterization isn't as strong as Niko's or Tommy's, but the overall plot I believe was not only fun, but also pretty decent for a 90s gangsta feel. It's not Boyz in the Hood, but it's not bad at all. Now if you don't like those type of settings, plots, and characters than that is cool, but I think objectively it was good.

I don't understand why people think that there are no campy, funny moments in IV and the whole game is depressing. Has everyone forgotten Brucie? Or Bernie? Manny? Roman? What about the stranger missions? Not to mention there's a few bit characters like that Jack Thompson lookalike and French Tom? Honestly, the humour is still there, just a little bit more discreet and not so "in your face" like SA.

 

Furthermore, the first third of SA had a "gangsta" feel to it, with gangs. To be honest, I quite liked the atmosphere and feel. If it had stayed like that it would have been a lot better. But after CJ gets driven out of LS, the story drops the whole "gangsta" feel and goes off on an insane route featuring alien goo and jetpacks. It loses all its identity and becomes a mess of a story, poorly paced and CJ displays some serious lack of intelligence, so, no "objectively" it was not good storytelling.

[japse123]

That the map is to small.

 

Rockstar sure promised us that the map will be the biggest to date. But I think some of us will be dissapointed.

[B-Dawk20]

 

I honestly have felt R* has never failed in the story department since it got more heavy with Vice City. Some people feel SA's is silly but I cannot disagree more. Yes, it has it's campy moments but that I feel is what GTA is supposed to have. I think that the atmosphere in GTAIV kind of took that away and I was a bit upset. I think a great balance between the two is what we need in V. And that is across the board. Gameplay, Story, etc. Maybe CJ's characterization isn't as strong as Niko's or Tommy's, but the overall plot I believe was not only fun, but also pretty decent for a 90s gangsta feel. It's not Boyz in the Hood, but it's not bad at all. Now if you don't like those type of settings, plots, and characters than that is cool, but I think objectively it was good.

I don't understand why people think that there are no campy, funny moments in IV and the whole game is depressing. Has everyone forgotten Brucie? Or Bernie? Manny? Roman? What about the stranger missions? Not to mention there's a few bit characters like that Jack Thompson lookalike and French Tom? Honestly, the humour is still there, just a little bit more discreet and not so "in your face" like SA.

 

Furthermore, the first third of SA had a "gangsta" feel to it, with gangs. To be honest, I quite liked the atmosphere and feel. If it had stayed like that it would have been a lot better. But after CJ gets driven out of LS, the story drops the whole "gangsta" feel and goes off on an insane route featuring alien goo and jetpacks. It loses all its identity and becomes a mess of a story, poorly paced and CJ displays some serious lack of intelligence, so, no "objectively" it was not good storytelling.

I'm not trying to say IV took all of that away, just didn't think it had enough of it. I do agree that there was a good chunk of SA where it got kind of zaney but I think that mostly lasted in Las Venturas. San Fierro was different but I liked where it took the story to how CJ started to kind of rise up from being just a gangbanger and try to find his own or attempt to become more legit(as legit as crime can get I guess). That continued on and got more apparent towards the end of the story. Did it go off the deep end with some of the more silly stuff? Yes, from time to time and that is also why I do not think it's a great story, but in spite of that, I found it solid overall.

 

So yes, I see where you are coming from, but I don't feel it hurt the plot in the same amount.

 

edit: Thinking a bit more on the whole dynamic of GTA: SA a bit more, I guess the whole identity shift is pretty detrimental. I mean, after he gets kicked out of LS, I don't dislike the second half at all, it's just...the camp in the story REALLY picked up and the more plot points I remember(I haven't beaten the game in 6 years, forgive me on this), the more the shift really was pretty abrupt. I guess good isn't the word I'd use for it's plot the more I think on it. Good? No, not really either. But I still find it to be decent and enjoyable. It's just...damn it really did get....out there huh? Jeez heh. Still, like I said, I enjoyed it immensely and I liked what it did and what it provided for gameplay and I'm guessing that is what kind of contorted my view upon it.

Edited November 22, 2012 by B-Dawk20

[Wayne Daniels]

Vehicle and leaf physics

[B-Dawk20]

That the map is to small.

 

Rockstar sure promised us that the map will be the biggest to date. But I think some of us will be dissapointed.

Ah, I don't think they'll short change us on literal size...it's city size I'm worried about.

[tinman187]

Honestly, my worries are with game length. This is a minor worry for me though as I've always managed to drag out my GTA games to a full year. I just hope there is a tonne of missions and side quests for me to do to get to 100%. R* have always exceeded my expectations though so Im confident this game will be awesome.

[Forestroad08]

The Driving, Cockpit View/Hud/Bonnet View Should Be There

[B-Dawk20]

Honestly, my worries are with game length. This is a minor worry for me though as I've always managed to drag out my GTA games to a full year. I just hope there is a tonne of missions and side quests for me to do to get to 100%. R* have always exceeded my expectations though so Im confident this game will be awesome.

Yeah I guess I can see that being worrisome. I think the 25 hour thing they said is probably raw campaign time so I'm not worried.

[Beee]

[Red Hat]

Well no gym and we cannot buy houses Something which i really miss. But Rockstar said we can do many other new things in GTA V so, i am a little bit satisfied

[FranticFatality]

That you won't be able to encounter random happenings in free roam.

 

The thing that made GTAIV so replayable for me is that you could find random sh*t happening in most areas.

 

You could find police officers chasing someone, a random shootout, fighting and lots of things like that.

 

If random happenings happen in GTAV, I'm a happy man.

[japse123]

That you won't be able to encounter random happenings in free roam.

 

The thing that made GTAIV so replayable for me is that you could find random sh*t happening in most areas.

 

You could find police officers chasing someone, a random shootout, fighting and lots of things like that.

 

If random happenings happen in GTAV, I'm a happy man.

What?

 

There was so few of these events and almost never happened.

 

Plus, Rockstar confirmed that random events will be happening in V. Like finding a abboned car in the desert and many body around it. After that you could investigate the scene. The random events will be like in RDR.

 

So if you meant to say was that is wasn't random events you are wrong, they are confirmed for V

[TheWetPartoftheArm]

 

I'm pumped, but these are 5 things I'm worried about

 

1. Malls, Shopping Centers, Clothing Stores, Restaurants, and etc haven't been announced yet, I hope there are a variety of those in each area.

 

2. I'm worried that only heists, robberies, and hostage missions are only story missions. I hope we can initiate little robberies, heists, and take someone hostage on our own/side mission

 

3. I am worried the Game will be short because nowadays, game companies are making games shorter to focus on multiplayer. I know this is Rockstar I'm talking about, but I really want the game to be long. Like 50 hours long. No, mabye 40 hours

 

4. I am worried that cheats will restrict me from saving. I know cheats will probably restrict me from small certain achivements like, "Completing all Side Missions for 50G". Yes, I know some people on this forum don't play the story with cheats and they wait until they finish the game to put cheats in. And there are some idiot elitists out there who think GTA is the end all, be all of gaming and they think cheats are for children and people who can't play GTA. I actually use cheats during every GTA's story. But I'm kinda in the middle. I don't use crazy cheats. In GTA 4, the only cheats I used were the No Cops, Weather, Guns, and Weather cheat. That's it. I am planning on beating GTA 5 without cheats to see what beating a GTA without cheats is like. I might use cheats down the road though. But I hope cheats won't just forbid me form SAVING THE GAME. This is GTA I'm talking about. Cheats are just, acceptable in GTA. I'm not talking about Mass Effect or Splinter Cell.

 

5. I just really want the world to feel like a living, breathing city. I want variety in each neighborhood, store, mall, etc.

1. The ability to change clothes has been confirmed, as for how many clothing stores there'll be, who knows? I agree and hope there are plenty of those to explore.

 

2. I agree, but the heists in the story will be elaborate and huge, and there are six of them, so we'll easily get our heist fix even if you can't do it in free roam.

 

3. The game has already been confirmed to be similar to RDR's story, which took around 25-30 hours to complete. Even San Andreas wasn't 40 hours, that's way too much to expect from a non-RPG.

 

4. This is actually my main concern too, I like using cheats sometimes and don't care what other people think about that. I don't use them often but I do use them and I don't want them restricting my ability to save the game because of that. They might though, as they did so with RDR. I want to be able to use the Wanted Level cheat if the cops are as prevalent as they were in IV, because you can't enjoy yourself if every time you breathe heavily the cops chase you, which is what happened with Niko. One time I got a star just for punching someone once while there were no cops in sight, and they somehow knew where I was. I like to be able to wreak havoc without consequence sometimes and a cheat for no cops would be ideal.

 

5. I wouldn't worry about that one bit, LA is the most diverse city in the world and judging by the descriptions of what has been seen thus far it's gonna be the most vibrant city R* have ever created.