JustRob Posted January 11, 2013 Author Share Posted January 11, 2013 What a dumb thread. Do you really not understand why GTA games take longer to create now than they used to? Prepare to get even more sand in your vagina when we hit next gen and the time between gets even longer. Yeah, watch out people next gen it's gonna take ten years lol. Then they might as well call it quits and declare bankruptcy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustRob Posted January 11, 2013 Author Share Posted January 11, 2013 Has R* dropped the ball? This era has taken longer, certainly, but I'd take IV, RDR, and V over III, VC, and SA any day. How do I know that when V hasn't come out yet? Let's see... sharks, submarines, dogs, Los Santos (my fav), countryside and marine environments, silenced weapons, heist missions (plural!), jets/planes, bicycles, parachutes in the vanilla game, tennis and golf (finally!), dynamic missions (e.g., stealing bank trucks), biggest R* map ever--and that's just off the top of my head! V will be well worth the wait. Yeah obviously you're going to pick current gen games over previous gen games. This is like saying you'd take New Super Mario Bros. Wii over Super Mario Bros. any day. What a dumb statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaghetti Cat Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 I think he's saying the newer games will be worth the wait. I think he's saying the newer games will be worth the wait. No Image Available Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 R* needs to hire more people and get a GTA out the door every three years. No more than that. 5 years is a long time to wai feverishlyt for a game. This. Three years is a good amount of time so it doesn't get stale like a yearly release but doesn't take freaking 5+ years either. It's quite embarrassing for a developer of this level. It's not emberrasing at all if you know the history of Rockstar Games that I listed on the first page in case you haven't seen it yet. GTAForums Crew Chat Thread - The Sharks Chat Thread - Leone Family Mafia Chat Thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoungChrist Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) Notice how GTA III, Vice City and San Andreas looked and played the same? Secondly, I wouldn't want to see Rockstar launch a Grand Theft Auto every 3 years. Surely its only been about 15 years since the series started and nobody is getting bored of it. But eventually, if you launch a GTA every 3 years the series will get boring, simple as that. Thirdly, I dont want Rockstar to rush to meet a deadline. GTA games are art, rushing to make one every 3 years just sounds like their rushing to meet a deadline and make a quick buck. I rather they just make GTA's when they're ready. Edited January 11, 2013 by YoungChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustRob Posted January 11, 2013 Author Share Posted January 11, 2013 Notice how GTA III, Vice City and San Andreas looked and played the same? Secondly, I wouldn't want to see Rockstar launch a Grand Theft Auto every 3 years. Surely its only been about 15 years since the series started and nobody is getting bored of it. But eventually, if you launch a GTA every 3 years the series will get boring, simple as that. Thirdly, I dont want Rockstar to rush to meet a deadline. GTA games are art, rushing to make one every 3 years just sounds like their rushing to meet a deadline and make a quick buck. I rather they just make GTA's when they're ready. Hello, wake up buddy. GTAV is gonna look and play the same as GTAIV as well. We didn't suddenly move over to the next generation of consoles, it's still the Xbox 360 and PS3. The similarities that GTAIII, GTA VC, and GTA SA had GTAV will have with GTAIV. And back when they were releasing a new GTA every year / every two years nobody was getting bored of it neither, both GTA VC and GTA SA did very well financially and commercially. And even GTA LCS / VCS did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamieleng Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 More detail, more complex game mechanics, huge map, better & more intricate storylines. It's pretty obvious why it takes longer to make current gen GTA's. Also V will look significantly better than IV (just as RDR was). Games released near the end of a console generation look a hell of a lot better, because developers are able to apply all the techniques they have learnt over many years using the same dev kits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoungChrist Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Notice how GTA III, Vice City and San Andreas looked and played the same? Secondly, I wouldn't want to see Rockstar launch a Grand Theft Auto every 3 years. Surely its only been about 15 years since the series started and nobody is getting bored of it. But eventually, if you launch a GTA every 3 years the series will get boring, simple as that. Thirdly, I dont want Rockstar to rush to meet a deadline. GTA games are art, rushing to make one every 3 years just sounds like their rushing to meet a deadline and make a quick buck. I rather they just make GTA's when they're ready. Hello, wake up buddy. GTAV is gonna look and play the same as GTAIV as well. We didn't suddenly move over to the next generation of consoles, it's still the Xbox 360 and PS3. The similarities that GTAIII, GTA VC, and GTA SA had GTAV will have with GTAIV. And back when they were releasing a new GTA every year / every two years nobody was getting bored of it neither, both GTA VC and GTA SA did very well financially and commercially. And even GTA LCS / VCS did. Well we will see what happens when it launches right? Graphically they may look similar but regarding content and gameplay we may see a different type of GTA. Secondly, I already made the point that GTA hasn't gotten boring over the past 15 years regardless of how quickly Rockstar has been pushing them out. But, after a while it will inevitably get boring if they were to launch it every 3 years. Secondly, that destroys the creative process, rushing to get a product done. Thats what Activision has been doing for the last few years, sure they sell a lot, is the game fun anymore though? Not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustRob Posted January 11, 2013 Author Share Posted January 11, 2013 More detail, more complex game mechanics, huge map, better & more intricate storylines. It's pretty obvious why it takes longer to make current gen GTA's. Also V will look significantly better than IV (just as RDR was). Games released near the end of a console generation look a hell of a lot better, because developers are able to apply all the techniques they have learnt over many years using the same dev kits. All of this goes for San Andreas as well, compared to Vice City. Yet it only took them two years instead of FIVE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonp92 Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Since you're counting Liberty City stories, why not count Chinatown wars and Episodes from Liberty City? It's only been 3 years. EDIT: Not to mention RDR, L.A Noire and Max Payne 3 which Rockstar North helped develop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reform Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Since you're counting Liberty City stories, why not count Chinatown wars and Episodes from Liberty City? It's only been 3 years. Further still, if you're counting Liberty City Stories etc, you might aswell count Rockstars non-GTA games too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustRob Posted January 11, 2013 Author Share Posted January 11, 2013 EFLC is DLC, and follow the events of GTAIV, and besides that they're much shorter then GTAIV. CTW is a handheld game, and not to mention top-down view and low-res graphics. LCS and VCS at least were put on the PS2 and had their own separate storylines in a different year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamieleng Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 More detail, more complex game mechanics, huge map, better & more intricate storylines. It's pretty obvious why it takes longer to make current gen GTA's. Also V will look significantly better than IV (just as RDR was). Games released near the end of a console generation look a hell of a lot better, because developers are able to apply all the techniques they have learnt over many years using the same dev kits. All of this goes for San Andreas as well, compared to Vice City. Yet it only took them two years instead of FIVE. It was just so much easier to program last gen's GTA's. Why do people want a game every two years that would probably be a third the size & scope of V? Do you really like spending more money for less? The modern consumer is an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reform Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 EFLC is DLC, and follow the events of GTAIV, and besides that they're much shorter then GTAIV. CTW is a handheld game, and not to mention top-down view and low-res graphics. LCS and VCS at least were put on the PS2 and had their own separate storylines in a different year. Aside from the initial work they did for the original GTA3 and VC games, R*north had basically nothing to do with LC/VC stories games, as they were worked on by R*Leeds, so had no impact of R*norths work on new GTA main titles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonp92 Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Dan Houser actually said they could bring out a GTA game each year. Obviously the quality would plummet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustRob Posted January 11, 2013 Author Share Posted January 11, 2013 More detail, more complex game mechanics, huge map, better & more intricate storylines. It's pretty obvious why it takes longer to make current gen GTA's. Also V will look significantly better than IV (just as RDR was). Games released near the end of a console generation look a hell of a lot better, because developers are able to apply all the techniques they have learnt over many years using the same dev kits. All of this goes for San Andreas as well, compared to Vice City. Yet it only took them two years instead of FIVE. It was just so much easier to program last gen's GTA's. Why do people want a game every two years that would probably be a third the size & scope of V? Do you really like spending more money for less? The modern consumer is an idiot. The point is they should be able to do a game the size of V in two or three years by now. Since you're counting Liberty City stories, why not count Chinatown wars and Episodes from Liberty City? It's only been 3 years. Further still, if you're counting Liberty City Stories etc, you might aswell count Rockstars non-GTA games too. Why the hell would I count non-GTA games in with the GTA series. I know it's hard, but try to keep up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reform Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Why the hell would I count non-GTA games in with the GTA series. I know it's hard, but try to keep up. I think maybe you need to try to keep up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan_Philip Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Its only been about a month for me. As soon as i was done IV I froze myself and set a timer for december 2012 to see if V was out yet. Obviously its not so ill be refreezing myself for a few more months this weekend if anyone wants to join Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Valor Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Has R* dropped the ball? This era has taken longer, certainly, but I'd take IV, RDR, and V over III, VC, and SA any day. How do I know that when V hasn't come out yet? Let's see... sharks, submarines, dogs, Los Santos (my fav), countryside and marine environments, silenced weapons, heist missions (plural!), jets/planes, bicycles, parachutes in the vanilla game, tennis and golf (finally!), dynamic missions (e.g., stealing bank trucks), biggest R* map ever--and that's just off the top of my head! V will be well worth the wait. Yeah obviously you're going to pick current gen games over previous gen games. This is like saying you'd take New Super Mario Bros. Wii over Super Mario Bros. any day. What a dumb statement. I hope you're referring to your own comment as I actually prefer the original Super Mario Bros. Please don't put words in my mouth just so you can call them dumb. In any case, GTA is a much different franchise than Mario. Mario was always about a fantasy world that only looked more gay and cartoony with higher resolutions. GTA, on the other hand, is about the real world. As such, it can always be improved to represent the world in more detailed and engaging ways. It is a franchise that must continue to grow and improve until we have a matrix-esque virtual reality in which we can do whatever we want with impunity... Sorry, nerdgasm. GTA is only going to be more resource-intensive as it improves with each generation. This evolution will bottleneck eventually: R* won't give us the matrix any time soon. In the mean time, however, I concede that they should probably hire some more employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubleOGJohnson Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Rockstar has used Los Angeles multiple times, Los Santos itself is being revised. It shouldnt take 5 years for a game in a city you've had data on for 3 or 4 other games. When Rockstar selects a city for a game location, they send people around that city to gather data about landmarks, places, etc. They have 10+ years of data about Los Angeles going back to SA. What is the excuse? And then you see pics of GTA V's skyline and San Andreas' Los Santos actually looks like it has MORE buildings. Certain lack of detail between a game that came out nearly 10 years before the new one isnt an excuse for "HD" or "man power". I dont mind waiting 5 years AS LONG AS they are new cities besides LS, LC, and VC. I dont wanna wait till 2018 for GTA 6 and Im in Miami again. If I have to wait 5 years I want Chicago, Philly, DC, Texas something they havent done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustRob Posted January 11, 2013 Author Share Posted January 11, 2013 Has R* dropped the ball? This era has taken longer, certainly, but I'd take IV, RDR, and V over III, VC, and SA any day. How do I know that when V hasn't come out yet? Let's see... sharks, submarines, dogs, Los Santos (my fav), countryside and marine environments, silenced weapons, heist missions (plural!), jets/planes, bicycles, parachutes in the vanilla game, tennis and golf (finally!), dynamic missions (e.g., stealing bank trucks), biggest R* map ever--and that's just off the top of my head! V will be well worth the wait. Yeah obviously you're going to pick current gen games over previous gen games. This is like saying you'd take New Super Mario Bros. Wii over Super Mario Bros. any day. What a dumb statement. I hope you're referring to your own comment as I actually prefer the original Super Mario Bros. Please don't put words in my mouth just so you can call them dumb. In any case, GTA is a much different franchise than Mario. Mario was always about a fantasy world that only looked more gay and cartoony with higher resolutions. GTA, on the other hand, is about the real world. As such, it can always be improved to represent the world in more detailed and engaging ways. It is a franchise that must continue to grow and improve until we have a matrix-esque virtual reality in which we can do whatever we want with impunity... Sorry, nerdgasm. GTA is only going to be more resource-intensive as it improves with each generation. This evolution will bottleneck eventually: R* won't give us the matrix any time soon. In the mean time, however, I concede that they should probably hire some more employees. So you agree that five years is way too long of a wait until a new GTA game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamieleng Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 More detail, more complex game mechanics, huge map, better & more intricate storylines. It's pretty obvious why it takes longer to make current gen GTA's. Also V will look significantly better than IV (just as RDR was). Games released near the end of a console generation look a hell of a lot better, because developers are able to apply all the techniques they have learnt over many years using the same dev kits. All of this goes for San Andreas as well, compared to Vice City. Yet it only took them two years instead of FIVE. It was just so much easier to program last gen's GTA's. Why do people want a game every two years that would probably be a third the size & scope of V? Do you really like spending more money for less? The modern consumer is an idiot. The point is they should be able to do a game the size of V in two or three years by now. You, I & everyone on here doesn't know exactly how big V is. You should know by now that R* likes to keep its cards close to their chest & there will plenty of things we won't know until we play it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Shot The Sheriff Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 It could be that way on the III era because the whole 3D thang was kind of new... now they need to innovate so that they keep the quality of the saga preserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnayx Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 What's the problem with waiting 5 years for an epic game? I see no problem in that, i rather have a game that would bring me entertainment for many many months Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Valor Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Has R* dropped the ball? This era has taken longer, certainly, but I'd take IV, RDR, and V over III, VC, and SA any day. How do I know that when V hasn't come out yet? Let's see... sharks, submarines, dogs, Los Santos (my fav), countryside and marine environments, silenced weapons, heist missions (plural!), jets/planes, bicycles, parachutes in the vanilla game, tennis and golf (finally!), dynamic missions (e.g., stealing bank trucks), biggest R* map ever--and that's just off the top of my head! V will be well worth the wait. Yeah obviously you're going to pick current gen games over previous gen games. This is like saying you'd take New Super Mario Bros. Wii over Super Mario Bros. any day. What a dumb statement. I hope you're referring to your own comment as I actually prefer the original Super Mario Bros. Please don't put words in my mouth just so you can call them dumb. In any case, GTA is a much different franchise than Mario. Mario was always about a fantasy world that only looked more gay and cartoony with higher resolutions. GTA, on the other hand, is about the real world. As such, it can always be improved to represent the world in more detailed and engaging ways. It is a franchise that must continue to grow and improve until we have a matrix-esque virtual reality in which we can do whatever we want with impunity... Sorry, nerdgasm. GTA is only going to be more resource-intensive as it improves with each generation. This evolution will bottleneck eventually: R* won't give us the matrix any time soon. In the mean time, however, I concede that they should probably hire some more employees. So you agree that five years is way too long of a wait until a new GTA game? Obviously, I would prefer that R* release GTAs as frequently as possible. But five years isn't so long that I won't enjoy V or will be turned off from GTA forever. I'm not sure how much of a wait is "too long." No matter how much time passes between releases, so long as I'm alive and the quality hasn't taken a turn for the worse, I will always be a R* customer. They earned my loyalty with III, VC, and SA, and have again with IV, RDR, and V. As far as I'm concerned, they don't owe the fans anything. I guess I look at it from a glass half full perspective... I'm just excited that another GTA is even in the works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdvanceTrak RSC Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 I don't think a HD game that's bigger than RDR, IV and SA combined can be finished in just a year or two. agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DS 17 Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 I agree it really sucks to wait, but Quality > Quantity IV for PC wasn't quality. Or only quality standards made in China. Then yes, it was very qualitative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algonquin Assassin Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) Agreed. If they don't launch by the end of May, it'll be a complete embarrassment. Why? A lot franchises spread sequels out over a number of years. I didn't hear Bethesda fans complain about Skyrim coming out 5 years after Obvilion. There's of course the infamous Duke Nukem Forever. Diablo III 12 years after Diablo II, Gran Turismo 5, 5 years after Gran Turismo 4 etc. Atleast R* already released a GTA this gen. With some franchises you're lucky to even a game a generation. People are so ungrateful at times. Edited January 11, 2013 by Miamivicecity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Showstopper 26 Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) Agreed. If they don't launch by the end of May, it'll be a complete embarrassment. Why? A lot franchises spread sequels out over a number of years. I didn't hear Bethesda fans complain about Skyrim coming out 5 years after Obvilion. There's of course the infamous Duke Nukem Forever. Diablo III 12 years after Diablo II, Gran Turismo 5, 5 years after Gran Turismo 4 etc. You didn't hear Beth fans complain about the time between Oblivion and Skyrim? There official forum was a mess with all the complaining. Rockstar finally said Spring after so much silence. If they delay it...that won't be good. They should be announcing the date soon. Why would they say they are revealing the box art this month if they plan on launching after Spring? Edited January 11, 2013 by Showstopper 26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baboultr Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Justrob it takes longer for a HD GTA Title to made what? you want GTA To be released every year like COD? Trust me the longer the better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now