They released a lot more GTA games in the past.

[JustRob]

, it may have been a massive contribution but it didn't take them much effort. San Diego did the most.

 

Once again EFLC are DLC, not separate games.

 

All Rockstar North did for RDR was give them all the basic engine stuff they used for GTAIV

The engine itself is Rockstar San Diego's.

 

 

Plus they take place in the same year in the same map in the same engine, and they're much shorter then GTAIV. It can't have taken them very long to make.

 

LCS takes place in 1998 and VCS takes place in 1984. Other than that, they're just pretty much the same games taking place in the same maps.

Nice try man except LCS and VCS both have their own different stories and set of missions, while EFLC just follows the GTAIV story but from a different perspective.

 

Plus most of the characters in EFLC we'd already seen in GTAIV, LCS and VCS mostly introduced new characters.

[ill-thoughts]

its because they were working on RDR, LA Noire and Max Payne 3. if they would have just focused on GTA5, we would have been playing this game a year ago.

[Matty]

 

All of that is speculation, it's nothing but a theory. Why the hell would Rockstar San Diego be credited as the main developer if Rockstar North did all the missions? Just because they follow a similar structure to GTA? I think they can do that with Rockstar North doing the biggest part of the game. And Agent was in development yeah, set for release in 2010. Three years later... Nothing. That's why I say it was a blunder.

Exactly, it's a theory but it is plausible. One things for certain is that Rockstar North did more on Red Dead Redemption then most people think - even if they didn't do the missions.

 

 

And by the way, all of that sh*t you named cost time that could have instead been used to develop GTAV, and it might have been released a year or two earlier. That's what I call dropping the ball, they need to get their priorities straight.

And contrary to popular belief, GTA isn't Rockstar North's only priority.

 

 

[...]while EFLC just follows the GTAIV story but from a different perspective.

Yeah... Except that missions would need to be programmed, custcenes created, voice actors would need to be contracted, dialogue created, new vehicles designed, interiors designed. Not to mention testing and the like before release. Yeah, not that much at all.

[JustRob]

 

And by the way, all of that sh*t you named cost time that could have instead been used to develop GTAV, and it might have been released a year or two earlier. That's what I call dropping the ball, they need to get their priorities straight.

And contrary to popular belief, GTA isn't Rockstar North's only priority.

 

No but it should be their highest priority.

 

 

[...]while EFLC just follows the GTAIV story but from a different perspective.

Yeah... Except that missions would need to be programmed, custcenes created, voice actors would need to be contracted, dialogue created, new vehicles designed, interiors designed. Not to mention testing and the like before release. Yeah, not that much at all.

 

All of this shouldn't have taken more then a few months.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

Nice try man except Red Dead Redemption was developed by Rockstar San Diego, GTA is Rockstar North's department. And L.A. Noire was developed by Team Bondi, Rockstar only published it.

Actually, Rockstar North did do work Red Dead Redemption, and are (or were) in the process of developing Agent (which has probably been pushed back) - which easily explains why there is a considerable gap between Episodes From Liberty City and GTA V.

Well they didn't do much, and that whole thing with "Agent" that's just a blunder. That's why I'm saying Rockstar dropped the ball.

From our perspective, yeah, Rockstar North didn't do much on Red Dead Redemption, but it wouldn't of been a two week job either. They would of done a lot more work then we think, in fact, I am actually pretty confident that Rockstar North would of done the whole mission design for Red Dead Redemption IMO as they follow a very similar structure to GTA style missions; albeit in a western setting. Also, whether you like to believe it or not, Agent was in development for quite a few years - hardly a blunder as you say.

 

Furthermore, Rockstar North also did do work on L.A. Noire, as well as Max Payne 3. They also did work on GTA Chinatown Wars. All of which were released between the release of Episodes of Liberty City back in 2009, and now. Link. Lets also not forget about the ports for the majority of these games; such as the re-release of GTA III and the release of Chinatown Wars for the iOS market and for the latter, for the PSP; both would've taken considerable time because of differences between the platforms. Yeah, they may not of done much by our standards, but a few months here and a few months there, it all adds up. Rockstar North haven't dropped the ball, they were focused on other projects.

All of that is speculation, it's nothing but a theory. Why the hell would Rockstar San Diego be credited as the main developer if Rockstar North did all the missions? Just because they follow a similar structure to GTA? I think they can do that with Rockstar North doing the biggest part of the game. And Agent was in development yeah, set for release in 2010. Three years later... Nothing. That's why I say it was a blunder.

 

And by the way, all of that sh*t you named cost time that could have instead been used to develop GTAV, and it might have been released a year or two earlier. That's what I call dropping the ball, they need to get their priorities straight.

Most of what you're saying is speculation aswell. How do you know all North did is give San Diego the game engine? The way you word it makes it seems as simple as that. As like I said with LA Noire look at the credits in RDR.

 

As for priorities I'm pretty sure the priority for R* and their stufios is to expand into other sectors of the market. They're not called GTA Games.

 

I think the fact GTA V will more than likely be R*'s last current gen title shows that it's definitely their main priority. Everything they've learned from Table Tennis in 2006 up until now will be applied to GTAV to give fans something to remember.

 

It'll be the culmination of all the hard work from the last 8 years since this gen started. I assume they wanted GTA V to be the cherry on top of the icing on the cake.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Miamivicecity

[ClaudeSpeed1911]

, it may have been a massive contribution but it didn't take them much effort. San Diego did the most.

 

Once again EFLC are DLC, not separate games.

 

All Rockstar North did for RDR was give them all the basic engine stuff they used for GTAIV

The engine itself is Rockstar San Diego's.

 

 

Plus they take place in the same year in the same map in the same engine, and they're much shorter then GTAIV. It can't have taken them very long to make.

 

LCS takes place in 1998 and VCS takes place in 1984. Other than that, they're just pretty much the same games taking place in the same maps.

Nice try man except LCS and VCS both have their own different stories and set of missions, while EFLC just follows the GTAIV story but from a different perspective.

 

Plus most of the characters in EFLC we'd already seen in GTAIV, LCS and VCS mostly introduced new characters.

Oh yea i remember seeing Mori or Billy in GTAIV.

How are EFLC the same story?

GTAIV had a story about Someone wanting to live the american dream and find that special someone.

TLAD story was about downfall of The Lost.

TBOGT story was about the downfall and the comeback of gay Tony.

 

The only thing in common is the Diamonds and some of the characters.

[JustRob]

, it may have been a massive contribution but it didn't take them much effort. San Diego did the most.

 

Once again EFLC are DLC, not separate games.

 

All Rockstar North did for RDR was give them all the basic engine stuff they used for GTAIV

The engine itself is Rockstar San Diego's.

 

 

Plus they take place in the same year in the same map in the same engine, and they're much shorter then GTAIV. It can't have taken them very long to make.

 

LCS takes place in 1998 and VCS takes place in 1984. Other than that, they're just pretty much the same games taking place in the same maps.

Nice try man except LCS and VCS both have their own different stories and set of missions, while EFLC just follows the GTAIV story but from a different perspective.

 

Plus most of the characters in EFLC we'd already seen in GTAIV, LCS and VCS mostly introduced new characters.

Oh yea i remember seeing Mori or Billy in GTAIV.

How are EFLC the same story?

GTAIV had a story about Someone wanting to live the american dream and find that special someone.

TLAD story was about downfall of The Lost.

TBOGT story was about the downfall and the comeback of gay Tony.

 

The only thing in common is the Diamonds and some of the characters.

I said most characters, there were only a few of them who were new.

 

And what I meant is the same timeline. Everything happens at the same time as GTAIV, it's just from a different perspective. The biggest plot points in TLAD and TBOGT = The diamonds and the heroin.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

, it may have been a massive contribution but it didn't take them much effort. San Diego did the most.

 

Once again EFLC are DLC, not separate games.

 

All Rockstar North did for RDR was give them all the basic engine stuff they used for GTAIV

The engine itself is Rockstar San Diego's.

 

 

Plus they take place in the same year in the same map in the same engine, and they're much shorter then GTAIV. It can't have taken them very long to make.

 

LCS takes place in 1998 and VCS takes place in 1984. Other than that, they're just pretty much the same games taking place in the same maps.

Nice try man except LCS and VCS both have their own different stories and set of missions, while EFLC just follows the GTAIV story but from a different perspective.

 

Plus most of the characters in EFLC we'd already seen in GTAIV, LCS and VCS mostly introduced new characters.

Oh yea i remember seeing Mori or Billy in GTAIV.

How are EFLC the same story?

GTAIV had a story about Someone wanting to live the american dream and find that special someone.

TLAD story was about downfall of The Lost.

TBOGT story was about the downfall and the comeback of gay Tony.

 

The only thing in common is the Diamonds and some of the characters.

Apart from being set at the same time I'd put EFLC on level pegging with VCS and LCS. You don't even need GTA IV if you bought the stand alone retail version like I did.

 

 

Edited January 12, 2013 by Miamivicecity

[simonp92]

 

If you're gonna make a statement like that, you need to include every open world game R* released between GTA IV and V. This includes the episodes, RDR and I guess LA Noire is debatable.

 

I don't see much difference...

 

GTA IV - April 2008

 

The Lost and Damned - February 2009

 

Ballad of Gay Tony - October 2009

 

RDR - May 2010

 

LA Noire* - May 2011

 

GTA V - Spring 2013

 

 

If I include Max Payne 3, I played a R* game every single year since GTA IV.

This.

 

People tend to forget that R* north are helping the other studios, so a new games is released every year. I don't know about you guys but I'd rather have some new IP and new sequels, than a new GTA game each year.

Edited January 12, 2013 by simonp92

[Algonquin Assassin]

If you're gonna make a statement like that, you need to include every open world game R* released between GTA IV and V. This includes the episodes, RDR and I guess LA Noire is debatable.

 

I don't see much difference...

 

GTA IV - April 2008

 

The Lost and Damned - February 2009

 

Ballad of Gay Tony - October 2009

 

RDR - May 2010

 

LA Noire* - May 2011

 

GTA V - Spring 2013

 

 

If I include Max Payne 3, I played a R* game every single year since GTA IV.

This.

 

People tend to forget that R* north are helping the other studios, so a new games is released every year. I don't know about you guys but I'd rather have some new IP and new sequels, than a new GTA game each year.

Agreed. I'd guarantee people would gradually tire of GTA if that's all they were pumping out. Hypothetically if RDR, LA Noire and MP3 were replaced with GTA titles the general attitude for GTA V would be "Just another GTA".

 

Assassin's Creed for example IMO is proof too much of a good thing is actually bad. AC III was a good game, but it didn't feel "special".

[JustRob]

But the point is that a new GTA should be released at least every two years. That's why I said Rockstar dropped the ball.

[Ferocious Banger]

 

But the point is that a new GTA should be released at least every two years. That's why I said Rockstar dropped the ball.

I see where you're coming from, dude. But the OCD like obsession that Rckstar has over attention to detail makes it nearly impossible for it to happen. That's why my dear friend, open yourself to RDR. At least from the looks of it, RDR will be the Vice City of the coming generation; it has already been so this gen.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Ferocious Banger

[JustRob]

But the point is that a new GTA should be released at least every two years. That's why I said Rockstar dropped the ball.

I see where you're coming from, dude. But the OCD like obsession that Rckstar has over attention to detail makes it nearly impossible for it to happen. That's why my dear friend, open yourself to RDR. At least from the looks of it, RDR will be the Vice City of the coming generation; it has already been so this gen.

Yeah I don't think they'll be doing another RDR. Playing cowboy and riding through the desert was fun once, but got old later on.

[Ferocious Banger]

But the point is that a new GTA should be released at least every two years. That's why I said Rockstar dropped the ball.

I see where you're coming from, dude. But the OCD like obsession that Rckstar has over attention to detail makes it nearly impossible for it to happen. That's why my dear friend, open yourself to RDR. At least from the looks of it, RDR will be the Vice City of the coming generation; it has already been so this gen.

Yeah I don't think they'll be doing another RDR. Playing cowboy and riding through the desert was fun once, but got old later on.

A new RDR is actually under production, if the reports of the year gone-by are true. They are not fools to scrap the highly successful and critically acclaimed 'Red Dead' series.

 

It has become old to you. Fine, that's your opinion. But to many it'll live on forever. To me and many others, it is the greatest game of this generation.

[Jakee.]

Liberty City Stories & Vice City Stories were SPIN OFF titles for the PSP, they were developed by another entity within Rockstar Games..... that is why they were limited.

 

Rockstar North used to solely develop Grand Theft Auto titles, but now they have been working on other titles, that and the fact that for them to develop a full HD world with immersive missions and features is the real reason behind them "dropping the ball".

 

If you want to go back to recycled trash every year, why not jump on the Call of Duty train.

[TheWetPartoftheArm]

 

But the point is that a new GTA should be released at least every two years. That's why I said Rockstar dropped the ball.

I see where you're coming from, dude. But the OCD like obsession that Rckstar has over attention to detail makes it nearly impossible for it to happen. That's why my dear friend, open yourself to RDR. At least from the looks of it, RDR will be the Vice City of the coming generation; it has already been so this gen.

Yeah I don't think they'll be doing another RDR. Playing cowboy and riding through the desert was fun once, but got old later on.

I'm pretty sure they already said they'd love to do a RDR sequel, and a Bully sequel, the latter of which didn't come about because of MP3 but will come about in the future, it's just a matter of when they get around to it. My guess is after V is released they'll either return to Agent or, my preference, start developing Bully 2 if they haven't already.

 

OT: I personally think V was meant to come out in 2012 which means it would've been 4 years instead of 5, but it was delayed stealthily for whatever reason and now it's being released this year instead. I do concur that 5 years is a bit too much for a game being developed this late in the consoles' life cycle, R* should be more than familiar with the systems at this point and I can only attribute the 5 year development to the aforementioned OCD-level attention to detail and perhaps over-ambition. That's good news and bad news, good news in the sense that this probably really will be absolutely full to the brim with stuff to do and experience in a gigantic playground, but possibly bad news if they overdo things. AC3 bit off more than it could chew when it tried to do too many things at once and it ended up a disorganized mess where there was no real motivation to do anything. Hopefully though V won't meet the same fate, with R* at the helm. I'm just concerned as to how long it'll take VI to come out on the next gen consoles, if it takes 5 years on this then what... 7-8 years next time? Probably not, with luck the next gen consoles will be easier to develop games for and new technology will surface that enables certain processes to be completed within half the time. Otherwise I'll be in my thirties by the time VI comes out, which is unacceptable.

[theworldfamous]

sure it takes long to wait, and for instance Ubisoft is able to churn out large games much faster. But they don't have that You can't just hire a bunch of people, shut them into an office for 2 years and expect them to come back with Red Dead Redemption.

 

Be glad that there are still developers left who work with that 'it's done when it's done' mentality. And be absolutely amazed that Rockstar is able to maintain this level of artistry and style working with teams this big. That is incredibly rare, like what Disney had going during the 30's and 40's and if that means it takes 6 or 7 years to do a game. So be it.

[simonp92]

But the point is that a new GTA should be released at least every two years. That's why I said Rockstar dropped the ball.

I see where you're coming from, dude. But the OCD like obsession that Rckstar has over attention to detail makes it nearly impossible for it to happen. That's why my dear friend, open yourself to RDR. At least from the looks of it, RDR will be the Vice City of the coming generation; it has already been so this gen.

Yeah I don't think they'll be doing another RDR. Playing cowboy and riding through the desert was fun once, but got old later on.

And playing GTA just doesnt get boring?

 

RDRedemption is the secound best selling game R* has done this generation. + it won allot of awards. Trust me, a sequel is in the pipeline.

[JustRob]

But the point is that a new GTA should be released at least every two years. That's why I said Rockstar dropped the ball.

I see where you're coming from, dude. But the OCD like obsession that Rckstar has over attention to detail makes it nearly impossible for it to happen. That's why my dear friend, open yourself to RDR. At least from the looks of it, RDR will be the Vice City of the coming generation; it has already been so this gen.

Yeah I don't think they'll be doing another RDR. Playing cowboy and riding through the desert was fun once, but got old later on.

And playing GTA just doesnt get boring?

 

RDRedemption is the secound best selling game R* has done this generation. + it won allot of awards. Trust me, a sequel is in the pipeline.

GTA doesn't get boring because there's a new city every time, lots of new features etc.

 

Red Dead Redemption was awesome because we didn't have that yet, we didn't have a western game with so much freedom and such depth. But now we do, and I can't see them going on with that. What's the setting gonna be next? Another desert? Even if the small towns are new, don't you think it'd get boring quickly?

[lefantome]

Count Episodes from Liberty as Stories gtas

 

We had 3 console GTA in the last gen and 2 in the current.

[JustRob]

Count Episodes from Liberty as Stories gtas

 

We had 3 console GTA in the last gen and 2 in the current.

EFLC is DLC. Both games are so short that calling them full-fledged GTA's would be an embarassment to the franchise.

[BlackNoise]

Count Episodes from Liberty as Stories gtas

 

We had 3 console GTA in the last gen and 2 in the current.

EFLC is DLC. Both games are so short that calling them full-fledged GTA's would be an embarassment to the franchise.

Many people like the episodes more than Niko's story. They're definitely not "so short". Maybe shorter than a traditional GTA, but if nothing else, you can combine them, since that's probably how you bought them anyways. Then you're talking about a true GTA game in terms of length, or at least pretty close unless you're really rushing through.

 

I think I see what your problem is. You think quality games should be considered an "embarassment to the franchise" because of their shorter length. And you think because R* doesn't produce GTA games as often as they did in an easier, cheaper, technologically inferior era, you think "they really dropped the ball". You're putting too much on quantity of time. R* has always been about quality, so maybe you dropped the ball as a fan.

 

I'm assuming you don't care about video game development, but it would help you understand how unreasonable you're being if you just did a little research on the subject. Or you could just look at GTA III and then quickly look at GTA IV and ask yourself if you see a difference.

[IronZombie]

It takes a longer time to make these quality of games, but it's also that Rockstar has shown that lately they really aren't in a rush to get something done. They take their time because they're one of the few game studios in the world with an IP that will sell well no matter what. Nothing we can do now but wait.

[mitchnorton]

I've never gotten so much cancer from posts in a single topic before

[FAH-Q]

At this point in marketing, I expected to get a lot more V info, more often than we are.

[Irrational]

I remember reading in some interview that Dan Houser said that they actually CAN release a GTA game per year, but if they did that, people would get bored of the series, or something between those lines.

[Grand_Theft_Coupe]

I guess you will have to deal with the wait just like everybody else! Grand Theft Auto isn't known for being released every two to three years. Grand Theft Auto titles are known for it's perfection and time craft, I'd like it to stay that way!

[Showstopper 26]

At this point in marketing, I expected to get a lot more V info, more often than we are.

This something isn't right.

[123-bob]

At this point in marketing, I expected to get a lot more V info, more often than we are.

This something isn't right.

im not so sure

 

Its a Grand Theft Auto game, with the power of the GTA brand, i think that rockstar are in the unique position that they can release information when ever they want, and they dont need to have numerous trailers and information and gameplay vids to market this game.

 

Think of Apple, they announce new products and release them 2-3 weeks after the announcement purely because of the Apple brand because people will buy it and i think thats very similar when it comes to GTA games.

[Bluepolitician]

But the point is that a new GTA should be released at least every two years. That's why I said Rockstar dropped the ball.

GTA takes more than two years to get everything out of it. I just played TBOGT for the first time this week. I still love playing IV. Why would you want some unoriginal ass story/ game every two years? This isn't COD. You are going to be playing V for the next four years you watch.