"GTA V looks dated"

[DarkDayz]

It's going to look dated if people keep f*ing putting it in the same sentence as next gen.

 

This is a current generation game, don't know what the whole menstrual cycle about it is, it's not going to look like the games shown at the next gen conferences is it.

[BlackLightning]

The beauty of GTA V is in the details. If you don't know that, then go play Saint's Row 4 and shut the hell up.

[Lioshenka]

Why should I care how it looks? Warcraft 2, GTA 3 and Dangerous Dave 3 are some of the most awesome games ever. Its all about the gaming experience and attention to details.

[JonRenemy]

 

It's running on 9 year old hardware, what would you expect?

Less confusing to use a consoles launch date as the timeframe... so around 7 and a half years old, or 6 and a half for PS3.

 

Still, it's still fairly old yeah.

 

That's the thing, I mean when they would have been properly starting to develop the game, the X360 was 4 years old. So even at that, it was an old starting point and it's clear they've had to take a LOT of time to iron things out and get it all running properly.

 

I have absolutely nothing to worry about, I still play GTA IV and consider it a nice looking game that plays brilliantly. I get more enjoyment out of it than most of the latest games.

 

EDIT:

Also worth mentioning that Houser stated they are a software company, not a hardware company. They are about quality of game, not graphics. Quality of the experience.

That Dutch quote even contradicts it's negative point by saying that what GTA V lacks in graphics, it makes up for in gameplay and that's EXACTLY what every GTA has been about. I mean San Andreas looks like gangrape!!

[TheGodDamnMaster]

It's running on 9 year old hardware, what would you expect?

Less confusing to use a consoles launch date as the timeframe... so around 7 and a half years old, or 6 and a half for PS3.

 

Still, it's still fairly old yeah.

 

That's the thing, I mean when they would have been properly starting to develop the game, the X360 was 4 years old. So even at that, it was an old starting point and it's clear they've had to take a LOT of time to iron things out and get it all running properly.

 

I have absolutely nothing to worry about, I still play GTA IV and consider it a nice looking game that plays brilliantly. I get more enjoyment out of it than most of the latest games.

 

EDIT:

Also worth mentioning that Houser stated they are a software company, not a hardware company. They are about quality of game, not graphics. Quality of the experience.

That Dutch quote even contradicts it's negative point by saying that what GTA V lacks in graphics, it makes up for in gameplay and that's EXACTLY what every GTA has been about. I mean San Andreas looks like gangrape!!

The consoles were most likely designed a year before launch, so yeah, around 8 or 9 years old. Even when they launched they were the equivalent of a mid-range PC at that time.

[dyspoid]

Some people on this forum seem a tonne of iq points brighter than others.

 

Im not some ass kissing fool, but Rockstar produce great games. That is why I only really ever buy Rockstar games. They are worth the money. The graphics of IV are great, and in my opinion, I would be happy if they never progressed. If V matches this, I will be happy. Just recenty, I drove around LC in hood view, and I, honestly, admired how beautiful this game is. The only thing the city lacked was immersion. We just need more to do, and some life added to the visuals.

 

I can understand complaining about map size a whole lot more.

 

 

[FutoDriver]

Wow, remind me to never joke on the super serious GTAforums! You can refrain from frothing at the mouth now.

 

I was just teasing with the wordplay Kate Upton > Kate Hudson

[BlackNoise]

So far, nobody can point out one single PS4 title that looks notably better than current-gen games.

I'm going to disagree on that. The leap is pretty big, despite the new consoles not being as powerful as the PS360 were at launch.

It's funny how you disagree, but you don't point out a single title.

[nigelhere9901]

 

It's running on 9 year old hardware, what would you expect?

Less confusing to use a consoles launch date as the timeframe... so around 7 and a half years old, or 6 and a half for PS3.

 

Still, it's still fairly old yeah.

 

That's the thing, I mean when they would have been properly starting to develop the game, the X360 was 4 years old. So even at that, it was an old starting point and it's clear they've had to take a LOT of time to iron things out and get it all running properly.

 

I have absolutely nothing to worry about, I still play GTA IV and consider it a nice looking game that plays brilliantly. I get more enjoyment out of it than most of the latest games.

 

EDIT:

Also worth mentioning that Houser stated they are a software company, not a hardware company. They are about quality of game, not graphics. Quality of the experience.

That Dutch quote even contradicts it's negative point by saying that what GTA V lacks in graphics, it makes up for in gameplay and that's EXACTLY what every GTA has been about. I mean San Andreas looks like gangrape!!

The consoles were most likely designed a year before launch, so yeah, around 8 or 9 years old. Even when they launched they were the equivalent of a mid-range PC at that time.

That is incorrect. X360 was relatively more powerful than High End PCs with a single Graphics Card configuration (I'm not sure if SLI/Crossfire existed at that moment).

 

X360 introduced Unified Shader Architecture which wasn't even available on PCs at that time. In 2005 The 8xxx Series brought this feature and both consoles PS360 were left behind in the raw performance race.

 

 

 

It's funny how you disagree, but you don't point out a single title. 

Is there a need to? Every PS4 game shown looks leaps and bounds better than what's available on the PS360 right now.

 

Edited May 27, 2013 by nigelhere9901