Dreading further reductions of violence in GTA V

[Ant_On_Sugar]

I am a long time fan of the GTA series. I was playing a demo of the first GTA before it was even released.

I have observed the evolution of the GTA series. Changes that have been made over time.

One thing and perhaps the only thing that bothers me is the reduction of violence. I don't know if Rockstar are trying to make 18 rated games more kid friendly (which doesn't even make sense since kids will not be sold 18 rated games) or if the makers are simply folding to government pressures to censor and or reduce the violence.

What ever the reason, I have found these 'changes' most disappointing and I cringe to think what further reductions of violence might be expected with GTA V.

Here are my observations...

 

1. Heads do not blow apart in GTA IV as they did in previous GTA games. It is simply unrealistic for a head to remain perfectly intact after multiple close range shots of a gun, especially from a shotgun, machine gun or sniper rifle. I thought San Andreas had this perfect: Low calibre weapons did not take heads off, just a squirt of blood, but shotguns, machine guns and sniper rifles took heads right off.

This was a feature I was looking forward to in GTA IV, since I anticipated the added realism of gore with the advanced graphics of PS3, yet instead of more realistic, the game actually took a step back wards since San Andreas and heads became impenetrable.

 

2. Bullet holes do not appear on the face or head or body accurately in GTA IV. There is only a 'vague' stain indicating inaccurately whereabouts you shot. Even games for the lower powered computer PS2 such as The Punisher had such realism; clear distinctive bullet holes in the flesh/face/head and body, with the head/limbs eventually blasting off in to junks of meat with plenty of blood too. I refuse to believe that the PS3 can not achieve even better realism. In fact I know it can, for when playing V2 Sniper Elite, your bullets entry and exit wound is clearly seen on your targets corpse, be the head or body, and the exit effect wasn't bad. At least they tried. This was a big disappointment to me in GTA IV also. I was hoping limbs (legs and arms would come off too) but the heads wouldn't even blow off so a big let down.

 

3. Although this was not a reduction of violence exactly, no attempt was made with the better graphics of PS3 to make this any more realistic. When bodies burned in previous GTA games, either by petrol bomb, vehicle fire or flame thrower, the corpses of your targets simply turned black, perhaps with a little moment of smoke coming from them. But despite all the power of the PS3 graphics, in GTA IV they just left this detail the same. If you angle a vehicles head lights overlooking a burnt corpse in GTA IV and then zoom in to the face with the sniper scope you will see there is absolutely no burn damage detail at all, not even the eyebrows are singed! All they've done is merely reduce the resolution/lightness making the burn victim 'darker', like a shadow. This was another disappointment for me. I expected with PS3 graphics for some detail. OK, maybe not dissolved fats melting on to the side walk making 'modern art', but they could have at least made some kind of tissue damage to the face - even like the melted cheese look of Freddy Kruegger perhaps. Or just a charcoal skull with teeth?

 

4. In GTA III, we had Claude, a silent protagonist (my personal favourite), who showed complete indifference to the damage and chaos he created. He was like a Terminator - doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear. Then with Tommy Vercetti, and although I like the actor Ray Liotta, I still preferred a silent protagonist. However, Tommy Vercetti didn't show much regard for people, was selfish and that wasn't so bad I suppose. Then CJ in San Andreas showed utter contempt for people which I liked even more that the Vercetti voice over. However with Niko thing took a very bad turn... Niko apologises for almost every thing he does in his car, sometimes even when attacking. This was a truly sickening and disappointing aspect of GTA IV to me. Not only does Niko apologise, he warns every one constantly as if showing an ever present reluctance to resort to violence. "You don't want this." "Do you want me to do this." "Don't make me do this." "Don't make me kill you." - As if to suggest your character has morals and ethics - despite his stats stating he's already killed 33,568 people etc. This makes playing tedious and fake, since the only way a character could kill that many people is if he was a psychotic monsterous sociopath - which is not that kind of person who tries to 'reason' with every one he points a gun at. He also makes excuses for the players violent conduct "I'm not having a good day!" etc. It's absurd and intellectually insulting, making game play annoying. This problem also featured in GTA IV spin-offs TBOGT.

 

5. The original GTA, GTA London and GTA 2 all relished in and glorified the violence. 'KILL FRENZY!' bonus, "COP KILLER!"' and 'GENOCIDE!' awards. Also in previous GTA games in your stats it had more specific information, such as "Cops killed: 4,583. Gang members killed: 406. People killed: 24,683 etc.

But in recent GTA games including GTA IV, it no longer tells you how many cops you have killed. I really hated this because the cops in GTA are you biggest threat and enemy, and when you take them to war on the street, you end up killing hundreds. Cops are the most significant thing you can kill in GTA, so I don't see why they shouldn't be counted as before, especially since in the new games we kill a lot more of them in quicker time.

 

6. People should not run when you point a gun at them in close range. Ok, personally I would if not close enough to attack and seize the gun, but in general people 'freeze' and try to reason with their aggressor. However, in GTA IV pedestrians almost immediately flee as if you said "Alright, go on get out of here!" Allowing them to go. But your not, one minute you've got a gun in their face and they have their hands up, the next they are half way down the street and disappear around the corner. This doesn't seem realistic and makes every pedestrian in GTA IV seem impetuous and boldly risking their chances of escape. Hitman Absolution in contrast has the opposite problem: people that could run away and escape merely crouching over on their knees awaiting execution, often long distances away from your position. But in GTA IV people are too 'wilful' and just do what they want. Its annoying. If a man armed with a machine gun wearing a ski mask pulls some nerd out of his car, the nerd doesn't chase and, unarmed, do the same to him and regain possession of his stolen vehicle. But this running away after raising the hands is most irritating. It reminds me of that scene at the end of The Silence of the Lambs when Clarice has her gun pointed at Buffalo Bill - who initially raises his hands but then slips away and runs. Maybe one person should do this out of every 10 just to make the game more interesting and add personal character to the pedestrians etc, but definitely not this wilful behavior from every one. Also, the cops should not draw their weapons if you've got the drop on them first. This has reduced violence because many of your intended victims escape you, unless you chase down each one of them, but then since you have to 'tap' the sprint button and you stamina runs out soon anyway, you can't keep this up for long. Another tactic injected in to GTA 4 to reduce violent game play.

 

7. Not having an invincibility cheat means you cannot become and unstoppable death machine - which is exactly how I like to play. The final attempt to reduce game violence in GTA IV was with the phone problem. The only way to top up your Health whilst going to war with the cops on the street (by that I mean battling them and their ever spawning helicopters for sustained periods of time) is to access your phone and select the cheat from the cheat menu. The problem with this and the subsequent reason your character ends of dying prematurely - ending your rampage, is because whilst your phone is out and you're attempting to select the health cheat, every time you get hit by a bullet, often by a helicopter in the sky (which is constant and unavoidable - another problem) your character puts his phone away. Now, why would he do this since his life is depending on it? The reason he has his phone out and is attemtping to select the health cheat is so he can live on to kill the cops he's battling. Another phone problem is that you can't even take your phone out in the first place when standing over a highlighted gun. This happens often during a cop war since every cop you kill drops their gun ( a different gun to the one you have when you select the Health and Ammo cheat - which is top of the list on your pohone as it happens). So, one problem means u can't take out your phone. The other problem means you can't keep it out either. This reduces violence by ensuring that you die during street rampage wars.

 

8. You can't slice throats from behind as in San Andreas. Plus Niko stabs down at grounded victims in a way that would break your wrist - was this intentional to teach idiots the wrong way in case they went on a knife killing spree?

 

I don't know why the violence is being reduced. So, some random nut kills a cab driver and blames his motivation on playing GTA... YEAH RIGHT! People who are going to shoot someone are going to do it anyway, and if they don't find their inspiration to kill through a video game, be it GTA or another game, they'll find it in some movie, made past or present. Seriously, playing these games is probably therapeutic for violent minded gamers - an escape of reality with no consequence and no reason to show reason. In my opinion they've taken the issue of violence in games ways too far, as if they're trying to teach a moral code through Nikos bizarre attempts at reasoning and apologising. I also think if violent minds can't vent by escapism in these games, then their frustrations will grow and grow - causing more mass shootings like James Holmes and all those other moronslike him. For this reason I think they should make games like GTA rated R 18 and as violent and real as possible.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Ant_On_Sugar

[ALeSsAnDrO]

Very good points you bring up here.

For me, especially point 4, about the characters and especially Niko, something I never really noticed.

 

And yes, GTA seems to be straying further and further from it's roots.

I dont care much for the stats, but you'd expect the graphical violence to be actually more detailed, instead it's the other way around.

[Mister Pink]

Yeah that pissed me off about Niko's character too. Saying "Sorry" in his laughable psuedo-serb accent.

 

I'm a little worried about Rockstar reducing the violence as well. Great thing about a silent character like Claude is his indifference. You don't get bogged down by listening to him get all moral on your ass.

 

CJ, I thought was a little preachy but he was a total badass and you could hear the humour in his tone of voice. CJ's attitude was more inline to what the player (YOU) is doing in the game, ya dig? Niko was apologising for the way you play. Major fail.

 

 

 

Vercetti was great as he seemed quite sociopathic. Lets just say he was good at his job. And realistically, we all play GTA because we have that mischievous streak to cause wanton destruction and be violent without real consequence. Not the sole reason but it's a strong part of the appeal of GTA.

 

I won't want some high-horse, moral pushing, wank-stain, loser, apologising for my gameplaying behaviour.

 

This is why Trevor is appealing to the classic GTA player. He actually may be the digital incarnation of the mischievous GTA players.

 

On the plus-side... RDR had great bullet-hole damage. Also entry/exit wounds on the head which was nice.

 

Max Payne 3 has bullet-holes on bodies and we've already seen a screenshot of GTA V with a bullet hole in person.

Edited April 26, 2013 by ThePinkFloydSound

[Ferocious Banger]

 

1. Heads do not blow apart in GTA IV as they did in previous GTA games. It is simply unrealistic for a head to remain perfectly intact after multiple close range shots of a gun, especially from a shotgun, machine gun or sniper rifle. I thought San Andreas had this perfect: Low calibre weapons did not take heads off, just a squirt of blood, but shotguns, machine guns and sniper rifles took heads right off.

This was a feature I was looking forward to in GTA IV, since I anticipated the added realism of gore with the advanced graphics of PS3, yet instead of "more realistic, the game actually took a step back wards since San Andreas and heads became impenetrable.

 

This

 

Does not become this:

 

 

 

2. Bullet holes do not appear on the face or head or body accurately in GTA IV. There is only a 'vague' stain indicating inaccurately whereabouts you shot. Even games for the lower powered computer PS2 such as The Punisher had such realism; clear distinctive bullet holes in the flesh/face/head and body, with the head/limbs eventually blasting off in to junks of meat with plenty of blood too. I refuse to believe that the PS3 can not achieve even better realism. In fact I know it can, for when playing V2 Sniper Elite, your bullets entry and exit wound is clearly seen on your targets corpse, be the head or body, and the exit effect wasn't bad. At least they tried. This was a big disappointment to me in GTA IV also. I was hoping limbs (legs and arms would come off too) but the heads wouldn't even blow off so a big let down.

 

3. Although this was not a reduction of violence exactly, no attempt was made with the better graphics of PS3 to make this any more realistic. When bodies burned in previous GTA games, either by petrol bomb, vehicle fire or flame thrower, the corpses of your targets simply turned black, perhaps with a little moment of smoke coming from them. But despite all the power of the PS3 graphics, in GTA IV they just left this detail the same. If you angle a vehicles head lights overlooking a burnt corpse in GTA IV and then zoom in to the face with the sniper scope you will see there is absolutely no burn damage detail at all, not even the eyebrows are singed! All they've done is merely reduce the resolution/lightness making the burn victim 'darker', like a shadow. This was another disappointment for me. I expected with PS3 graphics for some detail. OK, maybe not dissolved fats melting on to the side walk making 'modern art', but they could have at least made some kind of tissue damage to the face - even like the melted cheese look of Freddy Kruegger perhaps. Or just a charcoal skull with teeth?

 

 

Play Red Dead Redemption and Max Payne 3. Bullet-holes are there. The damage is even more visceral in Max Payne 3. I'm sure GTAV will be even better.

 

 

 

In GTA III, we had Claude, a silent protagonist (my personal favourite), who showed complete indifference to the damage and chaos he created. He was like a Terminator - doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear. Then with Tommy Vercetti, and although I like the actor Ray Liotta, I still preferred a silent protagonist. However, Tommy Vercetti didn't show much regard for people, was selfish and that wasn't so bad I suppose. Then CJ in San Andreas showed utter contempt for people which I liked even more that the Vercetti voice over. However with Niko thing took a very bad turn... Niko apologises for almost every thing he does in his car, sometimes even when attacking. This was a truly sickening and disappointing aspect of GTA IV to me. Not only does Niko apologise, he warns every one constantly as if showing an ever present reluctance to resort to violence. "You don't want this." "Do you want me to do this." "Don't make me do this." "Don't make me kill you." - As if to suggest your character has morals and ethics - despite his stats stating he's already killed 33,568 people etc. This makes playing tedious and fake, since the only way a character could kill that many people is if he was a psychotic monsterous sociopath - which is not that kind of person who tries to 'reason' with every one he points a gun at. He also makes excuses for the players violent conduct "I'm not having a good day!" etc. It's absurd and intellectually insulting, making game play annoying. This problem also featured in GTA IV spin-offs TBOGT.

 

..And that is the reason Trevor is in there.

 

 

. Not having an invincibility cheat means you cannot become and unstoppable death machine

 

Again, play RDR. There was an invincibility cheat.

 

 

You can't slice throats from behind as in San Andreas. Plus Niko stabs down at grounded victims in a way that would break your wrist - was this intentional to teach idiots the wrong way in case they went on a knife killing spree?

 

John Marston can do the exact same thing.

 

 

[TheQuestfor100Percent]

Like others said, I think based on RDR and MP3, the violence factor will be ramped up this time.

[Chekoloco]

Nice points... I want to know how many people, cops, fbi´s, army, swat, i killed.... also the rampages and frenezis!

[kesta195]

RDR addresses at least 3 of these issues. Also you have to consider that as graphics become more realistic developers like R* have to be careful not to make the violence too extreme as it attracts the wrong kind of attention from idiot politicians etc.

[Ant_On_Sugar]

Thanks for the replies people. Glad to see I'm not the only one who notices and has a problem with this.

Despite my post, I really am actually a pro-GTA gamer - by that I mean I've always enjoyed playing it, which is why I am so disappointed by the violence reduction. I always dreamed of a free roaming game like GTA even when I was a kid back in the days of 2D graphics. So I'll always appreciate that free roaming element to it. But the game will never grant absolute freedom to the player until limits on violence have been lifted. Then it will be truly addictive and endlessly entertaining.

To be honest, I don't bother much at all with other games. Red Dead Redemption is set in the wild west - so although that may be a fun experience, for me it won't be a lasting addictive game to play since I don't associate or relate to the wild west unless I've just finished watch Young Guns etc.

But I do relate to the city life of GTA and modern cars and guns etc. It's all like an escapism experience - just tear every thing up, throw caution to the wind and enjoy the slaughter without consequence.

To me that is what is appealing about GTA, always was. I hope GTA V brings back that element and accentuates it to its full potential.

[skyfamster]

Gta3 can break the body apart,that is cool

 

[ALeSsAnDrO]

 

Play Red Dead Redemption and Max Payne 3.  Bullet-holes are there. The damage is even more visceral in Max Payne 3. I'm sure GTAV will be even better.

 

 

..And that is the reason Trevor is in there.

 

 

Again, play RDR. There was an invincibility cheat.

 

 

John Marston can do the exact same thing.

 

He's talking about GTA.

[kesta195]

Play Red Dead Redemption and Max Payne 3.  Bullet-holes are there. The damage is even more visceral in Max Payne 3. I'm sure GTAV will be even better.

 

 

..And that is the reason Trevor is in there.

 

 

Again, play RDR. There was an invincibility cheat.

 

 

John Marston can do the exact same thing.

 

He's talking about GTA.

Yes, and they are R* two most recent games (not inc. LA Noire), run on the same engine that GTAV will run on and will provide some inspiration for GTAV's gameplay (dynamic missions?)

[Chekoloco]

Thanks for the replies people. Glad to see I'm not the only one who notices and has a problem with this.

Despite my post, I really am actually a pro-GTA gamer - by that I mean I've always enjoyed playing it, which is why I am so disappointed by the violence reduction. I always dreamed of a free roaming game like GTA even when I was a kid back in the days of 2D graphics. So I'll always appreciate that free roaming element to it. But the game will never grant absolute freedom to the player until limits on violence have been lifted. Then it will be truly addictive and endlessly entertaining.

To be honest, I don't bother much at all with other games. Red Dead Redemption is set in the wild west - so although that may be a fun experience, for me it won't be a lasting addictive game to play since I don't associate or relate to the wild west unless I've just finished watch Young Guns etc.

But I do relate to the city life of GTA and modern cars and guns etc. It's all like an escapism experience - just tear every thing up, throw caution to the wind and enjoy the slaughter without consequence.

To me that is what is appealing about GTA, always was. I hope GTA V brings back that element and accentuates it to its full potential.

Agree

[ALeSsAnDrO]

Yes, and they are R* two most recent games (not inc. LA Noire), run on the same engine that GTAV will run on and will provide some inspiration for GTAV's gameplay (dynamic missions?)

I understand his reasoning but just because those games are made by R* doesnt mean the same amount of graphical violence/detail will be present in GTA.

The fact is, the last title in this specific franchise had violence toned down.

 

Like you said, there are a number of gameplay and technical improvements from RDR and MP3 that will be in GTA, but I'm not so sure about design decisions such as graphical violence.

 

GTA has been in the media spotlight and under pressure for years now because of this.

I'd hate to think R* wants to add more to the "realism"... all the while using it as a poor excuse to further tone down the violence.

[TheQuestfor100Percent]

Yes, and they are R* two most recent games (not inc. LA Noire), run on the same engine that GTAV will run on and will provide some inspiration for GTAV's gameplay (dynamic missions?)

I understand his reasoning but just because those games are made by R* doesnt mean the same amount of graphical violence/detail will be present in GTA.

The fact is, the last title in this specific franchise had violence toned down.

 

Like you said, there are a number of gameplay and technical improvements from RDR and MP3 that will be in GTA, but I'm not so sure about design decisions such as graphical violence.

 

GTA has been in the media spotlight and under pressure for years now because of this.

I'd hate to think R* wants to add more to the "realism"... all the while using it as a poor excuse to further tone down the violence.

I do not think it was a design decision to "reduce" the violence factor of GTA. I think it was just because it was the first game on the engine. I know people use that excuse for many things in GTA but for this I think it applies. I imagine individual bullet holes in someones body isn't the easiest thing for them to create. As for the way Niko acts, that is just personal opinion. I thought he was a perfect fit for IV. I do agree I would like stealth knife kills to return.

 

By the way, if you shoot someone in the head, their head doesn't explode or fly off in reality. If they want to go with realism anyways.

[ALeSsAnDrO]

I do not think it was a design decision to "reduce" the violence factor of GTA. I think it was just because it was the first game on the engine. I know people use that excuse for many things in GTA but for this I think it applies. I imagine individual bullet holes in someones body isn't the easiest thing for them to create. As for the way Niko acts, that is just personal opinion. I thought he was a perfect fit for IV. I do agree I would like stealth knife kills to return.

 

By the way, if you shoot someone in the head, their head doesn't explode or fly off in reality. If they want to go with realism anyways.

About the bullet holes, sorry I cant agree with that. I'm no programmer, but it's the most basic thing in 3D action games, it's done countless times since the 90's. Besides, they did them in IV for cars.

To me, it was clearly a design decision.

I'll always like GTA games, but when it comes to realistic visuals and behavior, the developers shouldn't hold a double standard.

If you're aiming for realism, you need to up the gore, not reduce it.

[kesta195]

Yes, and they are R* two most recent games (not inc. LA Noire), run on the same engine that GTAV will run on and will provide some inspiration for GTAV's gameplay (dynamic missions?)

I understand his reasoning but just because those games are made by R* doesnt mean the same amount of graphical violence/detail will be present in GTA.

The fact is, the last title in this specific franchise had violence toned down.

 

Like you said, there are a number of gameplay and technical improvements from RDR and MP3 that will be in GTA, but I'm not so sure about design decisions such as graphical violence.

 

GTA has been in the media spotlight and under pressure for years now because of this.

I'd hate to think R* wants to add more to the "realism"... all the while using it as a poor excuse to further tone down the violence.

I do not think it was a design decision to "reduce" the violence factor of GTA. I think it was just because it was the first game on the engine. I know people use that excuse for many things in GTA but for this I think it applies. I imagine individual bullet holes in someones body isn't the easiest thing for them to create. As for the way Niko acts, that is just personal opinion. I thought he was a perfect fit for IV. I do agree I would like stealth knife kills to return.

 

By the way, if you shoot someone in the head, their head doesn't explode or fly off in reality. If they want to go with realism anyways.

A point blank shotgun blast to the face doesn't leave much of the head intact I don't think.

[TheQuestfor100Percent]

I do not think it was a design decision to "reduce" the violence factor of GTA. I think it was just because it was the first game on the engine. I know people use that excuse for many things in GTA but for this I think it applies. I imagine individual bullet holes in someones body isn't the easiest thing for them to create. As for the way Niko acts, that is just personal opinion. I thought he was a perfect fit for IV. I do agree I would like stealth knife kills to return.

 

By the way, if you shoot someone in the head, their head doesn't explode or fly off in reality. If they want to go with realism anyways.

About the bullet holes, sorry I cant agree with that. I'm no programmer, but it's the most basic thing in 3D action games, it's done countless times since the 90's. Besides, they did them in IV for cars.

To me, it was clearly a design decision.

I'll always like GTA games, but when it comes to realistic visuals and behavior, the developers shouldn't hold a double standard.

If you're aiming for realism, you need to up the gore, not reduce it.

I guess we will find out soon enough. I liked the way RDR did it, how the person you shot would react to the specific body part you shot. I haven't played MP3 but I believe it was the same way.

 

Also I forgot to note, L.A. Noire was pretty gory. Some of the crime scenes were crazy.

 

 

I know those aren't GTA, but I think it is worth a thought.

[Miss Darko]

I don't think Niko's personality was a sly way to reduce violence in the videogame, they just wanted a character who was more relatable and sympathetic in this one. He's not a psychopath, so he doesn't feel great about it when the player makes him kill innocent people. They wanted to tell a good story in GTA IV, and good stories generally don't have heartless monsters as protagonists. It's a decision heavily related to GTA IV's more story-oriented focus. Whether or worked or not is more of a matter of personal taste. It's not like it ever really stopped me, anyways. I always just pretend Niko's being sarcastic, and then he sounds perfectly psychopathic (like his nonchalant "Sorry" when he runs over someone to death).

 

GTA V seems to have a different focus, though, perhaps in response to how IV was received, or perhaps simply because they wanted to do something different from IV to keep things fresh. Rockstar themselves mentioned that there was a rift between how the character acts in cutscenes and what the player can act like when discussing this difference between GTA IV and GTA V (although I personally never had this problem because I never considered my rampages part of the story, but I guess some do). It doesn't appear to take itself as seriously and features protagonists who are suited for each kind of play-style. Most likely, all three are more sympathetic and relatable than, say, Claude or Tommy, but still more reckless and apathetic than Niko. Of course, Trevor is particularly violent. It stands to reason that this new focus, coupled with improvements in the game engine itself lead with new R* games that were each more violent than GTA IV, will lead to more realistic violence.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Mr. Darko

[TheQuestfor100Percent]

A point blank shotgun blast to the face doesn't leave much of the head intact I don't think.

I can't speak for a shotgun, but I know from personal experience a shot from a M4 or an AK 47 will not blow their head off.

[richard1997jones]

The realism is up but the gore is down.

[Ant_On_Sugar]

I predict that GTA V will have even less violence than GTA IV.

I could be wrong and I certainly hope I am, but it won't surprise me if I notice changes in GTA V such as you can no longer burn people at all, blood no longer sprays against the wall behind a victim, pools of blood no longer form under bodies and pedestrians automatically dodge and avoid your car to cut down on the hit and runs. It seems to me that this is the direction GTA has been going in, sad as that is.

I guess we have nuts like James Holmes to thank for that - those morons that can't distinguish the large and potent difference between fantasy entertainment and hard reality.

 

Personally, I'd love to make my own GTA style free roaming game. Artistically I could do a great job, but I don't know the technical aspects of game making. Which is why I hope R* will do it for me, but I doubt it.

My game would be far too violent to be released mainstream though, so I'd only be making it for my own personal amusement. In my game, there would be no 'jobs', there would only be people throughout the city that you'd have to take out in order to gain reputation through instilling fear on the streets.

In GTA IV, the missions and story I felt restricted me the player from the 'freedom' to create my own story.

Merely being able to kill one guy and let another live etc ending up with a different apartment to me doesn't qualify as freedom to create your own story. I would have it so you start with nothing, a petty criminal who knows nobody, a loner. You mug someone (of your choice and in a place of your choice) with your bare hands, punch, kick, choke etc. With that money, say $57, you begin the process of working your way up the ladder. You could even start out as homeless and your safe house would be a cardboard box in an alleyway. Or under a bridge. With the small change you stole you can visit various shops to acquire various useful and interesting items, like a gas can, a lighter, a screw driver, a pocket knife, switchblade, flick knife or butterfly knife etc

Your first weapon can be things you find, or steal, such as a pipe, a chain, a crow bar, a half brick (and the bricks would actually work as vicious weapons - not like in GTA IV where they had little or no effect), a fire extinguisher etc. After mugging enough people you can either buy a car or just steal them from the start. I would also make the stealing car process something you get better at as the game progresses. For example, you start by car jacking which may attract unwanted attention, or punching a window through. But if you buy a slim jim or a screw driver, you can access the car quickly and discreetly without any interference.

The rules in my game would be simple, kill anyone who opposes you or gets in your way, compromise with nobody, and eventually take over the entire city with a vice like grip.

Fear is what you need to gain respect, you must 'make examples' of your enemies, not just kill them. But torture and kill them in the most painful way you can imagine. (This is why my game would not go mainstream, obviously). Methods of making examples would be skinning alive, roasting, boiling, stretching, disemboweling, crucifying, and impaling - Vlad Tepes style, oh and burning at the stake.

However all these forms of extreme power would only be obtained once you had established control of at least part of the city. All forms of killing, torture and controlling the people of your city would come upon completion - to keep the gamer occupied and entertained even after the game was complete.

As in the game The Punisher, you could start building your fear with more simple and less medieval executions, like feeding someone alive to a tank of pyrana fish or dipping their head in a deep fat fryer, or shoving them in a wood chipper or furnace etc.

Also in my game, you would have a video record and picture saving option to record your more significant kills and overtakes or simply any one you wish to record/ take a picture of.

Example, the man who mouthed off at you in the street, you knock him out, then crucify him upside down and set him on fire, and start beating his body with your chrome baseball bat and then you wish to take a picture with your camera phone to save because you were so satisfied with the mess you made.

It would also be a nice idea to own a pig farm so you could chop up and feed your corpse pieces to hungry pigs. And have various ways of getting rid of bodies. Remember the old car crushing technique in GTA, that has been sorely missed. Crushed!

[Agni]

No offense dude.

 

But with your lurid obsession on violence, you really sound like a serial killer in disguise right now. Like, I'm starting to think that there's some hooker's dead body inside of your closet. I have a feeling someone should probably call the police on you right now.

 

Either that or your so puerile that you need unnecessary violence in GTA just to keep going through it.

[Cutter De Blanc]

No offense dude.

 

But with your lurid obsession on violence, you really sound like a serial killer in disguise right now. Like, I'm starting to think that there's some hooker's dead body inside of your closet. I have a feeling someone should probably call the police on you right now.

 

Either that or your so puerile that you need unnecessary violence in GTA just to keep going through it.

And what about all the other people who have made this kind of topic and/or agreed with the OP?

 

It's just a game. And an M rated game, at that.

 

For the record I'd like lots of gratuitous violence as well and I'm not a serial killer.

[Agni]

Don't get me wrong, I like ultraviolence sometimes, but GTA is not really the series for it. The level of violence seen in RDR or MP3 is about what I want--it's brutal but it's not utterly ridiculous.

[ugotsmoked]

I can't speak for a shotgun, but I know from personal experience a shot from a M4 or an AK 47 will not blow their head off.

Post pics for proof.

[Rock Howard]

Like others said, I think based on RDR and MP3, the violence factor will be ramped up this time.

Yup, no question. Good example with the graphic gunshot wounds in MP3. V will be similar to this.

[Cutter De Blanc]

As long as the gore is as beautiful and epic as the rest of the game I'm happy.

 

(I haven't played MP3, but I hear the bloodshed is quality)

Edited April 27, 2013 by Cutter De Blanc

[JStarr31]

EDIT: wrong topic

[Cyfa]

Max Payne 3 had the most realistic and gruesome realistic blood/gore I've seen in a video game ever, I think.

[36Chambers]

Yeah, MP3 level of gore might be a bit much for GTAV, because in Max Payne they have slow-mo bullet time where the camera gets up close to the victim and shows the bullets individually piercing their flesh accompanied with gratuitous blood spray (watch the YouTube videos, quite a spectacle). That isn't really needed in GTAV, but if it were to be included, it'd make shooting someone a whole lot more realistic than in GTA IV. As for blowing someone's head off with a shotgun, I don't about that.