Just Realized Single Player 2 Weeks Before Online Is Awesome

[RrCoX22]

Just wanted to place the thought that I had while playing the game as I'm about halfway through it now, is that releasing the online play 2 weeks after the launch is probably the smartest thing I've seen any company do. Most of the past games I've purchase I haven't even played the single player mode I always go straight to online play. I know they still needed the extra time to fine out a few things but also think it was wonderful marketing strategy on Rockstar's part too. Sill can't wait for Oct. 1st though!

[Thor Shreddington]

I have to agree with that one! It'll also give them time to do some bug fixing for a patch when Online launches. The only thing that sucks about it is waiting!

[Ertrick36]

Couldn't agree more with you. It gives us the time we need to enjoy GTA V before getting GTA Online, so that none of us that bought the game on day one will fall behind the other players due to wanting to play singleplayer first. And I suspect even more people will buy GTA V on the launch date of Online, so it's a double wammy.

 

Though some people may not agree with you... but then again, they all probably have impotent rage up their asses and aren't capable of the same level of appreciation for the brilliant story of GTA V as some of us on the forums (I know that sounds snobbish, but some people really can't just enjoy a good story if it gave them a blow job). That could be attributed the fact that there are a number of these people who are of adolescent age or younger.

[MuddledMuppet]

Oh I wouldn't say it sounds snobbish. Arrogant maybe, presumtpuous, ignorant, unnessecarily spitefull, trollish and confrontational, but no not snobbish.

 

As to tho rginal point, I would have liked access to online straight away, because in my opinion shared experiences offer something that isn't quite the same. Woulda been nice to jump into online straight away with friends and share that moment of 'wow' at some of the stunning vistas etc.

 

It'll all be good anyway, but if I'd had the choice I woulda been online first with friends, and then do the story mode when no friends were on.

 

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that online was ready to go on release, there weren't any patches/bugs etc needed, it was a design choice rather than needed for practical purposes for tweaking etc.

Edited September 23, 2013 by MuddledMuppet

[Ertrick36]

You are definitely an exception. I mean, I don't think that many people on here are of the age of 50+ years (yes, I have looked into your history and found posts where you've stated your age), and it surprises me that someone who is thirty years older than me is going on these forums. I didn't make clear what exactly what I was referring to. What I meant was more the impatient people who get tired of playing singleplayer after the first two hours of playing, and just want to cut to multiplayer (people who go on here just to complain about online not coming fast enough rather than contribute to the community, and there are a great number of people whose histories are only filled with this sort of stuff). The OP sounds like he's similar to you in that he usually would go straight to multiplayer and play singleplayer in his spare time without friends.

 

Though if you weren't of the group I oversimplified, you probably wouldn't have called me arrogant, presumptuous, ignorant, unnecessarily spiteful, trollish, and confrontational all in a single sentence, and it surprises me still that a 50 year-old man has reduced to name-calling. I'd agree with the arrogant, presumptuous, spiteful, and confrontational parts, though; I don't have much respect for a lot of gamers I meet online, and that is the honest truth.

[SuperDuperGta]

I think that GTAV ending was rushed, some may disagree.

 

I think they are even now still developing GTAO refining it and getting it ready, thats an extra month of development purely focused on GTAO

[Ertrick36]

I think that GTAV ending was rushed, some may disagree.

 

I think they are even now still developing GTAO refining it and getting it ready, thats an extra month of development purely focused on GTAO

I actually agree with you.

 

[Don't read the spoiler unless you've beaten the game]

 

 

For those who picked C (I picked this);

 

It seemed that the ending was too "happy-go-lucky" for a criminal game. There was literally nothing lost by any of the three protagonists; no wealth was lost, no lives were lost, no loved ones were lost, nothing. And the end note was "let's just lay low and pretend none of this happened", and everyone goes on their way. I didn't hate the ending, but I do think it was oversimplified.

 

 

From what I've read, people speculate that the servers are undergoing tests. They are testing servers beyond the local level. This is good because it'll mean that lag issues will be considerably fixed or at the very least minimized, and that we may possibly be able to play with others from abroad. Americans will get to play with Europeans, Asians, South Americans, and soldiers on tour

[MuddledMuppet]

You are definitely an exception. I mean, I don't think that many people on here are of the age of 50+ years (yes, I have looked into your history and found posts where you've stated your age), and it surprises me that someone who is thirty years older than me is going on these forums. I didn't make clear what exactly what I was referring to. What I meant was more the impatient people who get tired of playing singleplayer after the first two hours of playing, and just want to cut to multiplayer (people who go on here just to complain about online not coming fast enough rather than contribute to the community, and there are a great number of people whose histories are only filled with this sort of stuff). The OP sounds like he's similar to you in that he usually would go straight to multiplayer and play singleplayer in his spare time without friends.

 

Though if you weren't of the group I oversimplified, you probably wouldn't have called me arrogant, presumptuous, ignorant, unnecessarily spiteful, trollish, and confrontational all in a single sentence, and it surprises me still that a 50 year-old man has reduced to name-calling. I'd agree with the arrogant, presumptuous, spiteful, and confrontational parts, though; I don't have much respect for a lot of gamers I meet online, and that is the honest truth.

I'm not sure how my age makes me an exception, I'm pretty sure there are people of all age ranges who are capable of enjoying a good story but also would have wished to have the shared experience of discovering GTA at the outset.

 

I'm also curious as to what age you think you will be when you no longer enjoy games or think that you're too old to post on forums? Yeah I'm 50, I still enjoy practically everything I did at 20 and 30, squash, bike riding, sailing, music, playing guitar, socialising, cooking, even sex when I get my hands on a litttle blue pill. Gaming is just one thing i've enjoyed over the years and will continue to do so while my arthritic thumbs can manage the controler. as you also seem to look down on those younger, what is the 'golden age' that allows people to express a valid opinion? I'm reminded of the classic Who song containing the line 'I hope I die before I get old', there opinions changed as they got older, I'm pretty sure that by the time you hit 50 you'll still wish to express your opinions, and you won't stop gaming or anything else you enjoy while you're still able to do it. Again, I'd be very interested in hearing at what age you think you will stop, and why.

 

I'm also curious as to why you think a 50 year old shouldn't be 'reduced' to name calling? again, at what age will you be when you stop responding to such remarks? Right now it seems you are happy to be 'name calling' people on no evidence whatsoever, 'presuming' that anyone wh has different wants than you falls into a certain catagory, being arrogant in your presumption that your way is the only valid way, being confrontation in advance to those who may disagree with you and (successfully) trolling to elict a responce.

 

you were the one name calling sir, the fact that you addressed it to all and sundry who don't share your opinion doesn't change that. I was responding to your name-calling. feel free to further research my posts here or on any forum, try and find one single instance of me 'name-calling' anyone as a first course action. Describing behaviour (accurately enough for you at actually agree with most of my descriptors) isn't name calling in the slightest.