Blaine County = 70% empty mountains!

[Wylight]

No point arguing about it. Half the people want more trees and fish, the other half wants more buildings and interiors, and neither half seems to understand the concept of software and hardware limitations, as well as the concept of supply and demand.

 

Peopl were already pissing their pants in rage when the game was delayed the first time. Imagine the outcry if Rockstar had come out and said, "Sorry guys, we've decided to cancel GTAV for the PS3 and Xbox 360, favoring their next generation counterparts. The reason for this being that we simply can't give you the quality of game you expect without removing some trees...and fish...and the laundry mat...and those half dozen other liquor stores we were going to put in. Our bad!"

 

The expectations of most people are infinitely high and unreachable because they change dynamically. The fact is, Rock star could never give us all what we wanted outside of going into the distant future and bringing back hardware and software that would allow them to completely map all interiors and exteriors of the planet, and provide it on an equally powerful console for us to play on. Then of course people would complain that they had to play it on the futuristic console instead of the Xbox 360/PS3 they already have, then someone else would throw out there that they were really disappointed that you could invade NASA HQ but they left out the ability to travel to the moon.

 

It's one thing to point out a potential improvement, and another to call a game a complete disappointment because it didn't meet your tree count expectations...

I don't know about the others but for me, it ain't a complete disappointment, but you gotta take it this way: everyone imagined the game diferently, what I might consider good for me it may not be good enough for you so it's obviously that when the game doesn't meet YOUR expectations you get disappointed

 

P.S. if they knew they couldn't deliver all that much then they shouldn't have advertised the game as so.

[Proletariat]

I'm sorry but I just realized they had a very ''good'' strategy of enlarging the map by throwing in a lot of empty mountains that are very big and too narrow to even climb properly on them

 

They removed over 90% of the trees in some areas and apart from Mt Chiliad all the other mountains seem to have been thrown there just for the sake of making the map bigger, the only thing you'll see is some bushes and flowers here and there, you barely see a couple trees in some spots

 

There is only one forest close to Mt Chiliad but even that one is small and doesn't really feel like a forest or like a remote place. I was watching the trailers and screenshots saying '' Ah there aren't too many trees around but it's ok'' only to find out they even removed a lot of them

 

And I ain't talking about trees only but also more details like all sort of cabins and variations in the terrain.....I don't know, it just doesn't feel like the wilderness we've been promised and I still remember R* saying that ''is definitely not a large emty world'', well yeah the city and a few othe places are not empty but the mountains that take a big chunk are just like that...

 

If you have something to say, say it but please, don't come with things like '' Wot da f*ck, are yo really complainin' about trees??, that doesn't really matter, it's not important '' cause I swear I heard that about every seingle negative aspect about the game, if nothing matters then might as well go back and play GTA 3.

If you've ever been through the Tejon Pass on the I-5 North towards Grapevine, CA and Bakersfield, CA you pass through the Tehachapi Mountains, you'd see that there is very little vegetation on the mountains let alone trees. Whateer vegetation you do fins are some shrubs and dried out gass. It's a beautiful drive, when you descend from the Tejon Pass you see Grapvine and the farmlad/irrigated farms for miles and miles. Kind of like Braddock Pass and Grapeseed in GTA V. The cities of Santa Claria, GOrman, Lebec, and the Tejon Ranch are all passed along the way. The drive has very steep grades and narrow turns. But yeah. Not too many trees. I really think R* did justice to the Calfornia contryside.

[Official General]

 

 

So if the next game is all city people won't complain about that right?

 

Bro, I'm telling you now, if Liberty City in GTA IV had :

 

* A lot more fun and interesting things to do and see, including side missions and activities.

 

* A lot of random crime, shootings, and other ped action/events happening in the streets

 

* A lot of good stuff to spend money on

 

* Much more accessible interiors

 

* And less repetitive missions

 

I can almost guarantee you that people won't even be thinking about how they wished for countryside and wilderness in IV. Trust me, the only reason people kept harping on about it was because Liberty City was just lacking in many areas, and many found it boring to free roam after a while - so many people falsely believed that countryside and wilderness would be the answer to those issues. Those that wished for that in IV are not really intelligent to understand that countryside and wilderness will be of no use to a location entirely based on New York City and nearby New Jersey areas.

 

There is plenty of country in NJ but I remember a ton of comments with people complaining about no countryside and now they give us plenty of countryside and people still complain. Making these games must be like trying to please a nagging wife.

 

 

I know that there is countryside and wilderness in New Jersey, I'm not stupid or lacking knowledge. What I'm saying is that Alderney was not based on the whole State of New Jersey, it was based on certain parts of New Jersey very close by to New York City. Based on that, there was just no need for countryside or wilderness in GTA IV, Rockstar stated this many times. Anyone who cannot understand that, obviously lacks any kind of remote intelligence and knowledge, and that includes those who complained about countryside and wilderness not being in IV. They only complained about that, simply because there was not a lot else to do in IV outside of the main storyline, I'm sure of it.

 

 

 

if you have good gameplay then you can have whatever location you want but if the gameplay ain't that good the location won't even matter anymore, you'll get bored

 

@ Skizzo45

 

Yeah, you understand my point exactly

Edited October 14, 2013 by Official General

[woggleman]

Last night I actually witnessed some people camping and a guy playing guitar in some country near Paleto Bay. I respect people's opinions but some of this stuff is actually in the game and I get tired of people just repeating blatant falsehoods. Explore more if you think there is nothing in the country. It's filled with random events.

[M0nsterSkillz]

I agree with OP, it would have been much much better if R* would have added much more tree's to make it like thick woods & forests. Nevertheless Blaine County's mountains are pretty decent to explore on a sanchez & when taking part in online races etc.

[woggleman]

 

 

 

So if the next game is all city people won't complain about that right?

 

Bro, I'm telling you now, if Liberty City in GTA IV had :

 

* A lot more fun and interesting things to do and see, including side missions and activities.

 

* A lot of random crime, shootings, and other ped action/events happening in the streets

 

* A lot of good stuff to spend money on

 

* Much more accessible interiors

 

* And less repetitive missions

 

I can almost guarantee you that people won't even be thinking about how they wished for countryside and wilderness in IV. Trust me, the only reason people kept harping on about it was because Liberty City was just lacking in many areas, and many found it boring to free roam after a while - so many people falsely believed that countryside and wilderness would be the answer to those issues. Those that wished for that in IV are not really intelligent to understand that countryside and wilderness will be of no use to a location entirely based on New York City and nearby New Jersey areas.

 

There is plenty of country in NJ but I remember a ton of comments with people complaining about no countryside and now they give us plenty of countryside and people still complain. Making these games must be like trying to please a nagging wife.

 

 

I know that there is countryside and wilderness in New Jersey, I'm not stupid or lacking knowledge. What I'm saying is that Alderney was not based on the whole State of New Jersey, it was based on certain parts of New Jersey very close by to New York City, Rockstar stated this many times. Based on that, there was just no need for countryside or wilderness in GTA IV. Anyone who cannot understand that, obviously lacks any kind of remote intelligence and knowledge, and that includes those who complained about countryside and wilderness not being in IV.

 

I agree with you. I ddn't mind IV being an urban based game because it fitted but people whined about no countryside and R tried to give them what they want and they still whine. That is why I compare them to nagging wives. Countryside does work in V though.

[Wylight]

 

it all feels like it serves no point a forest as decoration

 

i wanted a forest you could get lost in with a cabin in it that felt remote from the rest of the game where you spent a duration of missions

I agree with you man.

After the first trailer and a couple of screenshots i imagined this game to be filled with forests, people and students camping in the forests.

And I thought everything will be detailed, full of wildlife and will be the best game in the universe.

I am disappointed (But it's still a fun game) , but I hope the PC version will look like what we have imagined in our heads.

 

Indeed I imagined the game just like you but don't worry, the PC version can give us most of that not because R* will give it to us but because we'll develop it ourselves. We will enlarge the map, put trees or cabins or whatever the heck we want, wherever we want it to be. Throw in more mini-games, vehicles and also fix glitches...

[Raavi]

 

I'm sorry but I just realized they had a very ''good'' strategy of enlarging the map by throwing in a lot of empty mountains that are very big and too narrow to even climb properly on them

 

They removed over 90% of the trees in some areas and apart from Mt Chiliad all the other mountains seem to have been thrown there just for the sake of making the map bigger, the only thing you'll see is some bushes and flowers here and there, you barely see a couple trees in some spots

 

There is only one forest close to Mt Chiliad but even that one is small and doesn't really feel like a forest or like a remote place. I was watching the trailers and screenshots saying '' Ah there aren't too many trees around but it's ok'' only to find out they even removed a lot of them

 

And I ain't talking about trees only but also more details like all sort of cabins and variations in the terrain.....I don't know, it just doesn't feel like the wilderness we've been promised and I still remember R* saying that ''is definitely not a large emty world'', well yeah the city and a few othe places are not empty but the mountains that take a big chunk are just like that...

 

If you have something to say, say it but please, don't come with things like '' Wot da f*ck, are yo really complainin' about trees??, that doesn't really matter, it's not important '' cause I swear I heard that about every seingle negative aspect about the game, if nothing matters then might as well go back and play GTA 3.

If you've ever been through the Tejon Pass on the I-5 North towards Grapevine, CA and Bakersfield, CA you pass through the Tehachapi Mountains, you'd see that there is very little vegetation on the mountains let alone trees. Whateer vegetation you do fins are some shrubs and dried out gass. It's a beautiful drive, when you descend from the Tejon Pass you see Grapvine and the farmlad/irrigated farms for miles and miles. Kind of like Braddock Pass and Grapeseed in GTA V. The cities of Santa Claria, GOrman, Lebec, and the Tejon Ranch are all passed along the way. The drive has very steep grades and narrow turns. But yeah. Not too many trees. I really think R* did justice to the Calfornia contryside.

 

 

That's one part of SoCal. There are plenty of very dense forests.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Raavi

[Wylight]

 

 

 

So if the next game is all city people won't complain about that right?

 

Bro, I'm telling you now, if Liberty City in GTA IV had :

 

* A lot more fun and interesting things to do and see, including side missions and activities.

 

* A lot of random crime, shootings, and other ped action/events happening in the streets

 

* A lot of good stuff to spend money on

 

* Much more accessible interiors

 

* And less repetitive missions

 

I can almost guarantee you that people won't even be thinking about how they wished for countryside and wilderness in IV. Trust me, the only reason people kept harping on about it was because Liberty City was just lacking in many areas, and many found it boring to free roam after a while - so many people falsely believed that countryside and wilderness would be the answer to those issues. Those that wished for that in IV are not really intelligent to understand that countryside and wilderness will be of no use to a location entirely based on New York City and nearby New Jersey areas.

 

There is plenty of country in NJ but I remember a ton of comments with people complaining about no countryside and now they give us plenty of countryside and people still complain. Making these games must be like trying to please a nagging wife.

 

 

I know that there is countryside and wilderness in New Jersey, I'm not stupid or lacking knowledge. What I'm saying is that Alderney was not based on the whole State of New Jersey, it was based on certain parts of New Jersey very close by to New York City, Rockstar stated this many times. Based on that, there was just no need for countryside or wilderness in GTA IV. Anyone who cannot understand that, obviously lacks any kind of remote intelligence and knowledge, and that includes those who complained about countryside and wilderness not being in IV. They only complained about that, simply because there was not a lot else to do in IV outside of the main storyline, I'm sure of it.

 

Not many people know and I don't know if this is true but it is said that at the very begining of the project they had with GTA 4 they wanted to give us 3 cities and countryside pretty much like GTA SA, it would have been a smaller LC, Carcer City and another city which I don't remember plus the surroundings but they decided to go with what we know today

[woggleman]

 

No point arguing about it. Half the people want more trees and fish, the other half wants more buildings and interiors, and neither half seems to understand the concept of software and hardware limitations, as well as the concept of supply and demand.

 

Peopl were already pissing their pants in rage when the game was delayed the first time. Imagine the outcry if Rockstar had come out and said, "Sorry guys, we've decided to cancel GTAV for the PS3 and Xbox 360, favoring their next generation counterparts. The reason for this being that we simply can't give you the quality of game you expect without removing some trees...and fish...and the laundry mat...and those half dozen other liquor stores we were going to put in. Our bad!"

 

The expectations of most people are infinitely high and unreachable because they change dynamically. The fact is, Rock star could never give us all what we wanted outside of going into the distant future and bringing back hardware and software that would allow them to completely map all interiors and exteriors of the planet, and provide it on an equally powerful console for us to play on. Then of course people would complain that they had to play it on the futuristic console instead of the Xbox 360/PS3 they already have, then someone else would throw out there that they were really disappointed that you could invade NASA HQ but they left out the ability to travel to the moon.

 

It's one thing to point out a potential improvement, and another to call a game a complete disappointment because it didn't meet your tree count expectations...

I don't know about the others but for me, it ain't a complete disappointment, but you gotta take it this way: everyone imagined the game diferently, what I might consider good for me it may not be good enough for you so it's obviously that when the game doesn't meet YOUR expectations you get disappointed

 

P.S. if they knew they couldn't deliver all that much then they shouldn't have advertised the game as so.

 

They never promised all these things people imagined. They always said Los Santos and countryside.

[Proletariat]

 

 

I'm sorry but I just realized they had a very ''good'' strategy of enlarging the map by throwing in a lot of empty mountains that are very big and too narrow to even climb properly on them

 

They removed over 90% of the trees in some areas and apart from Mt Chiliad all the other mountains seem to have been thrown there just for the sake of making the map bigger, the only thing you'll see is some bushes and flowers here and there, you barely see a couple trees in some spots

 

There is only one forest close to Mt Chiliad but even that one is small and doesn't really feel like a forest or like a remote place. I was watching the trailers and screenshots saying '' Ah there aren't too many trees around but it's ok'' only to find out they even removed a lot of them

 

And I ain't talking about trees only but also more details like all sort of cabins and variations in the terrain.....I don't know, it just doesn't feel like the wilderness we've been promised and I still remember R* saying that ''is definitely not a large emty world'', well yeah the city and a few othe places are not empty but the mountains that take a big chunk are just like that...

 

If you have something to say, say it but please, don't come with things like '' Wot da f*ck, are yo really complainin' about trees??, that doesn't really matter, it's not important '' cause I swear I heard that about every seingle negative aspect about the game, if nothing matters then might as well go back and play GTA 3.

If you've ever been through the Tejon Pass on the I-5 North towards Grapevine, CA and Bakersfield, CA you pass through the Tehachapi Mountains, you'd see that there is very little vegetation on the mountains let alone trees. Whateer vegetation you do fins are some shrubs and dried out gass. It's a beautiful drive, when you descend from the Tejon Pass you see Grapvine and the farmlad/irrigated farms for miles and miles. Kind of like Braddock Pass and Grapeseed in GTA V. The cities of Santa Claria, GOrman, Lebec, and the Tejon Ranch are all passed along the way. The drive has very steep grades and narrow turns. But yeah. Not too many trees. I really think R* did justice to the Calfornia contryside.

 

 

That's one part of SoCal. There are plenty of very dense forests.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry but I just realized they had a very ''good'' strategy of enlarging the map by throwing in a lot of empty mountains that are very big and too narrow to even climb properly on them

 

They removed over 90% of the trees in some areas and apart from Mt Chiliad all the other mountains seem to have been thrown there just for the sake of making the map bigger, the only thing you'll see is some bushes and flowers here and there, you barely see a couple trees in some spots

 

There is only one forest close to Mt Chiliad but even that one is small and doesn't really feel like a forest or like a remote place. I was watching the trailers and screenshots saying '' Ah there aren't too many trees around but it's ok'' only to find out they even removed a lot of them

 

And I ain't talking about trees only but also more details like all sort of cabins and variations in the terrain.....I don't know, it just doesn't feel like the wilderness we've been promised and I still remember R* saying that ''is definitely not a large emty world'', well yeah the city and a few othe places are not empty but the mountains that take a big chunk are just like that...

 

If you have something to say, say it but please, don't come with things like '' Wot da f*ck, are yo really complainin' about trees??, that doesn't really matter, it's not important '' cause I swear I heard that about every seingle negative aspect about the game, if nothing matters then might as well go back and play GTA 3.

If you've ever been through the Tejon Pass on the I-5 North towards Grapevine, CA and Bakersfield, CA you pass through the Tehachapi Mountains, you'd see that there is very little vegetation on the mountains let alone trees. Whateer vegetation you do fins are some shrubs and dried out gass. It's a beautiful drive, when you descend from the Tejon Pass you see Grapvine and the farmlad/irrigated farms for miles and miles. Kind of like Braddock Pass and Grapeseed in GTA V. The cities of Santa Claria, GOrman, Lebec, and the Tejon Ranch are all passed along the way. The drive has very steep grades and narrow turns. But yeah. Not too many trees. I really think R* did justice to the Calfornia contryside.

 

 

That's one part of SoCal. There are plenty of very dense forests.

 

Sure like Topanaga State Park near Malibu, but GTA V can't replicate everything. And they weren't trying to make a Skyrim here with forests and all.

[Proletariat]

 

 

 

 

So if the next game is all city people won't complain about that right?

 

Bro, I'm telling you now, if Liberty City in GTA IV had :

 

* A lot more fun and interesting things to do and see, including side missions and activities.

 

* A lot of random crime, shootings, and other ped action/events happening in the streets

 

* A lot of good stuff to spend money on

 

* Much more accessible interiors

 

* And less repetitive missions

 

I can almost guarantee you that people won't even be thinking about how they wished for countryside and wilderness in IV. Trust me, the only reason people kept harping on about it was because Liberty City was just lacking in many areas, and many found it boring to free roam after a while - so many people falsely believed that countryside and wilderness would be the answer to those issues. Those that wished for that in IV are not really intelligent to understand that countryside and wilderness will be of no use to a location entirely based on New York City and nearby New Jersey areas.

 

There is plenty of country in NJ but I remember a ton of comments with people complaining about no countryside and now they give us plenty of countryside and people still complain. Making these games must be like trying to please a nagging wife.

 

 

I know that there is countryside and wilderness in New Jersey, I'm not stupid or lacking knowledge. What I'm saying is that Alderney was not based on the whole State of New Jersey, it was based on certain parts of New Jersey very close by to New York City, Rockstar stated this many times. Based on that, there was just no need for countryside or wilderness in GTA IV. Anyone who cannot understand that, obviously lacks any kind of remote intelligence and knowledge, and that includes those who complained about countryside and wilderness not being in IV. They only complained about that, simply because there was not a lot else to do in IV outside of the main storyline, I'm sure of it.

 

Not many people know and I don't know if this is true but it is said that at the very begining of the project they had with GTA 4 they wanted to give us 3 cities and countryside pretty much like GTA SA, it would have been a smaller LC, Carcer City and another city which I don't remember plus the surroundings but they decided to go with what we know today

 

At least urban legends have some truth to them. But there is no truth behind R* giving us 3 cities for their next installment.

[gizz01]

This thread is incredible.......

 

 

 

Pre release.....

 

Millions of threads on "how big will the map be" with quality comments along the lines of "it better be "this" big or im never buying a R* game again... or "I hope its got open spaces like SA because gta was to claustrophobic...

 

Post release .......

 

"I would have preferred R* to do a smaller more detailed map"

 

"They could have scaled the roads and buildings down"

 

LOL........

 

And my favourite is "MARKETED AS (exhibit A) REALITY (exhibit B).....

 

Ever played a demo? Ya know that 2 mins of sh*t they make you sit through explaining that "this is not the finished product?" Sigh..........

 

I mean come on.... scale down roads and buildings..... im lost for words on that one....

 

You guys dont see eagles flying about and say hey thats kewl..... no you run on here bitching about how there isnt birds nests and how unrealistic it it to have birds and no nests....

 

Your incredible you really are, have you guys any idea of the xbox/ps3 specs? They dont even have a gig a ram lol, How they got what they did on the current gen consoles is incredible, but your lots knowledge goes as far as "make roads smaller you tards so we can have more of this....... "..

 

You guys just want more and more, no wonder these big devs dont listen to the public anymore because they could morph jesus christ into your living rooms and most of you would turn round and say "blehh noah and his ark didn't even show up, a cheap attempt."

 

Never happy, you guys will bitch till the end of time....

[woggleman]

This thread is incredible.......

 

 

 

Pre release.....

 

Millions of threads on "how big will the map be" with quality comments along the lines of "it better be "this" big or im never buying a R* game again... or "I hope its got open spaces like SA because gta was to claustrophobic...

 

Post release .......

 

"I would have preferred R* to do a smaller more detailed map"

 

"They could have scaled the roads and buildings down"

 

LOL........

 

And my favourite is "MARKETED AS (exhibit A) REALITY (exhibit B).....

 

Ever played a demo? Ya know that 2 mins of sh*t they make you sit through explaining that "this is not the finished product?" Sigh..........

 

I mean come on.... scale down roads and buildings..... im lost for words on that one....

 

You guys dont see eagles flying about and say hey thats kewl..... no you run on here bitching about how there isnt birds nests and how unrealistic it it to have birds and no nests....

 

Your incredible you really are, have you guys any idea of the xbox/ps3 specs? They dont even have a gig a ram lol, How they got what they did on the current gen consoles is incredible, but your lots knowledge goes as far as "make roads smaller you tards so we can have more of this....... "..

 

You guys just want more and more, no wonder these big devs dont listen to the public anymore because they could morph jesus christ into your living rooms and most of you would turn round and say "blehh noah and his ark didn't even show up, a cheap attempt."

 

Never happy, you guys will bitch till the end of time....

So true. There could be three cities and people would complain it is too big or they half assed one city.

[Wylight]

 

 

No point arguing about it. Half the people want more trees and fish, the other half wants more buildings and interiors, and neither half seems to understand the concept of software and hardware limitations, as well as the concept of supply and demand.

 

Peopl were already pissing their pants in rage when the game was delayed the first time. Imagine the outcry if Rockstar had come out and said, "Sorry guys, we've decided to cancel GTAV for the PS3 and Xbox 360, favoring their next generation counterparts. The reason for this being that we simply can't give you the quality of game you expect without removing some trees...and fish...and the laundry mat...and those half dozen other liquor stores we were going to put in. Our bad!"

 

The expectations of most people are infinitely high and unreachable because they change dynamically. The fact is, Rock star could never give us all what we wanted outside of going into the distant future and bringing back hardware and software that would allow them to completely map all interiors and exteriors of the planet, and provide it on an equally powerful console for us to play on. Then of course people would complain that they had to play it on the futuristic console instead of the Xbox 360/PS3 they already have, then someone else would throw out there that they were really disappointed that you could invade NASA HQ but they left out the ability to travel to the moon.

 

It's one thing to point out a potential improvement, and another to call a game a complete disappointment because it didn't meet your tree count expectations...

I don't know about the others but for me, it ain't a complete disappointment, but you gotta take it this way: everyone imagined the game diferently, what I might consider good for me it may not be good enough for you so it's obviously that when the game doesn't meet YOUR expectations you get disappointed

 

P.S. if they knew they couldn't deliver all that much then they shouldn't have advertised the game as so.

 

They never promised all these things people imagined. They always said Los Santos and countryside.

 

And I never imagined anything other than LS and the countryside, I never imagined LV or SF or anything cause I knew for a long time they won't be there. My point was that everyone has a specific ''pefect'' model of this game in their mind, some are exaggerated but some are decent and reasonable and when the game doesn't meet your expectations you get disappointed. R* shouldn't have announced the game two years ago and advertise it like that for 2 reasons:

 

1- they could have tested the final game more and end up with the optimal version, realising screens that were not containing elements that were going to be removed

 

2- the long wait lead people to dream about all sort of crazy things and features, again both exaggerated and reasonable ones. In one word OVERHYPE

[woggleman]

 

 

 

No point arguing about it. Half the people want more trees and fish, the other half wants more buildings and interiors, and neither half seems to understand the concept of software and hardware limitations, as well as the concept of supply and demand.

 

Peopl were already pissing their pants in rage when the game was delayed the first time. Imagine the outcry if Rockstar had come out and said, "Sorry guys, we've decided to cancel GTAV for the PS3 and Xbox 360, favoring their next generation counterparts. The reason for this being that we simply can't give you the quality of game you expect without removing some trees...and fish...and the laundry mat...and those half dozen other liquor stores we were going to put in. Our bad!"

 

The expectations of most people are infinitely high and unreachable because they change dynamically. The fact is, Rock star could never give us all what we wanted outside of going into the distant future and bringing back hardware and software that would allow them to completely map all interiors and exteriors of the planet, and provide it on an equally powerful console for us to play on. Then of course people would complain that they had to play it on the futuristic console instead of the Xbox 360/PS3 they already have, then someone else would throw out there that they were really disappointed that you could invade NASA HQ but they left out the ability to travel to the moon.

 

It's one thing to point out a potential improvement, and another to call a game a complete disappointment because it didn't meet your tree count expectations...

I don't know about the others but for me, it ain't a complete disappointment, but you gotta take it this way: everyone imagined the game diferently, what I might consider good for me it may not be good enough for you so it's obviously that when the game doesn't meet YOUR expectations you get disappointed

 

P.S. if they knew they couldn't deliver all that much then they shouldn't have advertised the game as so.

 

They never promised all these things people imagined. They always said Los Santos and countryside.

 

And I never imagined anything other than LS and the countryside, I never imagined LV or SF or anything cause I knew for a long time they won't be there. My point was that everyone has a specific ''pefect'' model of this game in their mind, some are exaggerated but some are decent and reasonable and when the game doesn't meet your expectations you get disappointed. R* shouldn't have announced the game two years ago and advertise it like that for 2 reasons:

 

1- they could have tested the final game more and end up with the optimal version, realising screens that were not containing elements that were going to be removed

 

2- the long wait lead people to dream about all sort of crazy things and features, again both exaggerated and reasonable ones. In one word OVERHYPE

 

That was their fault. R can;t read people's minds so they made what they thought would be great. Some people don't like it but it would have been impossible to please everybody.

[gizz01]

No point arguing about it. Half the people want more trees and fish, the other half wants more buildings and interiors, and neither half seems to understand the concept of software and hardware limitations, as well as the concept of supply and demand.

Peopl were already pissing their pants in rage when the game was delayed the first time. Imagine the outcry if Rockstar had come out and said, "Sorry guys, we've decided to cancel GTAV for the PS3 and Xbox 360, favoring their next generation counterparts. The reason for this being that we simply can't give you the quality of game you expect without removing some trees...and fish...and the laundry mat...and those half dozen other liquor stores we were going to put in. Our bad!"

The expectations of most people are infinitely high and unreachable because they change dynamically. The fact is, Rock star could never give us all what we wanted outside of going into the distant future and bringing back hardware and software that would allow them to completely map all interiors and exteriors of the planet, and provide it on an equally powerful console for us to play on. Then of course people would complain that they had to play it on the futuristic console instead of the Xbox 360/PS3 they already have, then someone else would throw out there that they were really disappointed that you could invade NASA HQ but they left out the ability to travel to the moon.

It's one thing to point out a potential improvement, and another to call a game a complete disappointment because it didn't meet your tree count expectations...

Thatssssssssssss probably the best post ive seen on these forums......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No it is the best post.....

[Wylight]

 

This thread is incredible.......

 

 

 

Pre release.....

 

Millions of threads on "how big will the map be" with quality comments along the lines of "it better be "this" big or im never buying a R* game again... or "I hope its got open spaces like SA because gta was to claustrophobic...

 

Post release .......

 

"I would have preferred R* to do a smaller more detailed map"

 

"They could have scaled the roads and buildings down"

 

LOL........

 

And my favourite is "MARKETED AS (exhibit A) REALITY (exhibit B).....

 

Ever played a demo? Ya know that 2 mins of sh*t they make you sit through explaining that "this is not the finished product?" Sigh..........

 

I mean come on.... scale down roads and buildings..... im lost for words on that one....

 

You guys dont see eagles flying about and say hey thats kewl..... no you run on here bitching about how there isnt birds nests and how unrealistic it it to have birds and no nests....

 

Your incredible you really are, have you guys any idea of the xbox/ps3 specs? They dont even have a gig a ram lol, How they got what they did on the current gen consoles is incredible, but your lots knowledge goes as far as "make roads smaller you tards so we can have more of this....... "..

 

You guys just want more and more, no wonder these big devs dont listen to the public anymore because they could morph jesus christ into your living rooms and most of you would turn round and say "blehh noah and his ark didn't even show up, a cheap attempt."

 

Never happy, you guys will bitch till the end of time....

So true. There could be three cities and people would complain it is too big or they half assed one city.

 

I don't think we're asking for the world, just a different approach. And why is the demo always looking better if that's supposed to be a demo or beta or whatever you prefer it to be?

[theworldfamous]

Loving the mountains... Blaine County overall.

 

I still wonder why people get mad over sh*t like this... as if Rockstar personally made a promise to you to include this or that pet-feature and then took it away from you.

 

You did not design this game, and there's probably a good reason for it (being: A you can't design games for sh*t, B you are not Rockstar and C you do not have 120 million to drop on 'a project')

[woggleman]

 

 

This thread is incredible.......

 

 

 

Pre release.....

 

Millions of threads on "how big will the map be" with quality comments along the lines of "it better be "this" big or im never buying a R* game again... or "I hope its got open spaces like SA because gta was to claustrophobic...

 

Post release .......

 

"I would have preferred R* to do a smaller more detailed map"

 

"They could have scaled the roads and buildings down"

 

LOL........

 

And my favourite is "MARKETED AS (exhibit A) REALITY (exhibit B).....

 

Ever played a demo? Ya know that 2 mins of sh*t they make you sit through explaining that "this is not the finished product?" Sigh..........

 

I mean come on.... scale down roads and buildings..... im lost for words on that one....

 

You guys dont see eagles flying about and say hey thats kewl..... no you run on here bitching about how there isnt birds nests and how unrealistic it it to have birds and no nests....

 

Your incredible you really are, have you guys any idea of the xbox/ps3 specs? They dont even have a gig a ram lol, How they got what they did on the current gen consoles is incredible, but your lots knowledge goes as far as "make roads smaller you tards so we can have more of this....... "..

 

You guys just want more and more, no wonder these big devs dont listen to the public anymore because they could morph jesus christ into your living rooms and most of you would turn round and say "blehh noah and his ark didn't even show up, a cheap attempt."

 

Never happy, you guys will bitch till the end of time....

So true. There could be three cities and people would complain it is too big or they half assed one city.

 

I don't think we're asking for the world, just a different approach. And why is the demo always looking better if that's supposed to be a demo or beta or whatever you prefer it to be?

 

I play the game and some of it is scaled back but some of it honestly looks better than the trailers. I also think the XBox version looks much worse. The PS3 version is great.

[Wylight]

 

 

 

This thread is incredible.......

 

 

 

Pre release.....

 

Millions of threads on "how big will the map be" with quality comments along the lines of "it better be "this" big or im never buying a R* game again... or "I hope its got open spaces like SA because gta was to claustrophobic...

 

Post release .......

 

"I would have preferred R* to do a smaller more detailed map"

 

"They could have scaled the roads and buildings down"

 

LOL........

 

And my favourite is "MARKETED AS (exhibit A) REALITY (exhibit B).....

 

Ever played a demo? Ya know that 2 mins of sh*t they make you sit through explaining that "this is not the finished product?" Sigh..........

 

I mean come on.... scale down roads and buildings..... im lost for words on that one....

 

You guys dont see eagles flying about and say hey thats kewl..... no you run on here bitching about how there isnt birds nests and how unrealistic it it to have birds and no nests....

 

Your incredible you really are, have you guys any idea of the xbox/ps3 specs? They dont even have a gig a ram lol, How they got what they did on the current gen consoles is incredible, but your lots knowledge goes as far as "make roads smaller you tards so we can have more of this....... "..

 

You guys just want more and more, no wonder these big devs dont listen to the public anymore because they could morph jesus christ into your living rooms and most of you would turn round and say "blehh noah and his ark didn't even show up, a cheap attempt."

 

Never happy, you guys will bitch till the end of time....

So true. There could be three cities and people would complain it is too big or they half assed one city.

 

I don't think we're asking for the world, just a different approach. And why is the demo always looking better if that's supposed to be a demo or beta or whatever you prefer it to be?

 

I play the game and some of it is scaled back but some of it honestly looks better than the trailers. I also think the XBox version looks much worse. The PS3 version is great.

 

I cannot disagree with that, is true that in some points the effects are better but in terms of game world objects I see a lot of missing details in some screens not just trees

Edited October 14, 2013 by Skizzo45

[Wylight]

Loving the mountains... Blaine County overall.

 

I still wonder why people get mad over sh*t like this... as if Rockstar personally made a promise to you to include this or that pet-feature and then took it away from you.

 

You did not design this game, and there's probably a good reason for it (being: A you can't design games for sh*t, B you are not Rockstar and C you do not have 120 million to drop on 'a project')

They actually spent 256 millions on this game

[woggleman]

 

 

 

 

This thread is incredible.......

 

 

 

Pre release.....

 

Millions of threads on "how big will the map be" with quality comments along the lines of "it better be "this" big or im never buying a R* game again... or "I hope its got open spaces like SA because gta was to claustrophobic...

 

Post release .......

 

"I would have preferred R* to do a smaller more detailed map"

 

"They could have scaled the roads and buildings down"

 

LOL........

 

And my favourite is "MARKETED AS (exhibit A) REALITY (exhibit B).....

 

Ever played a demo? Ya know that 2 mins of sh*t they make you sit through explaining that "this is not the finished product?" Sigh..........

 

I mean come on.... scale down roads and buildings..... im lost for words on that one....

 

You guys dont see eagles flying about and say hey thats kewl..... no you run on here bitching about how there isnt birds nests and how unrealistic it it to have birds and no nests....

 

Your incredible you really are, have you guys any idea of the xbox/ps3 specs? They dont even have a gig a ram lol, How they got what they did on the current gen consoles is incredible, but your lots knowledge goes as far as "make roads smaller you tards so we can have more of this....... "..

 

You guys just want more and more, no wonder these big devs dont listen to the public anymore because they could morph jesus christ into your living rooms and most of you would turn round and say "blehh noah and his ark didn't even show up, a cheap attempt."

 

Never happy, you guys will bitch till the end of time....

So true. There could be three cities and people would complain it is too big or they half assed one city.

 

I don't think we're asking for the world, just a different approach. And why is the demo always looking better if that's supposed to be a demo or beta or whatever you prefer it to be?

 

I play the game and some of it is scaled back but some of it honestly looks better than the trailers. I also think the XBox version looks much worse. The PS3 version is great.

 

I cannot disagree with that, is true that in some points the effects are better but in terms of game world objects I see a lot of missing details in some screens not just trees

 

That's every game though. Why single out just this one.

[theworldfamous]

 

Loving the mountains... Blaine County overall.

 

I still wonder why people get mad over sh*t like this... as if Rockstar personally made a promise to you to include this or that pet-feature and then took it away from you.

 

You did not design this game, and there's probably a good reason for it (being: A you can't design games for sh*t, B you are not Rockstar and C you do not have 120 million to drop on 'a project')

They actually spent 256 millions on this game

 

really? hmm.. so I was being kind then.

[Wylight]

 

 

Loving the mountains... Blaine County overall.

 

I still wonder why people get mad over sh*t like this... as if Rockstar personally made a promise to you to include this or that pet-feature and then took it away from you.

 

You did not design this game, and there's probably a good reason for it (being: A you can't design games for sh*t, B you are not Rockstar and C you do not have 120 million to drop on 'a project')

They actually spent 256 millions on this game

 

really? hmm.. so I was being kind then.

 

Here is the thing, this is the second most expensive entertaining product in the world ( after the movie The Pirates of the Caribbean ) and for that money I think it should deliver a bit more in terms of aspect and a lot more in terms of gameplay. I don't find this game more impressive that AC4 or Watch Dogs for example which didn't have that colossal budget

[gizz01]

 

I don't think we're asking for the world, just a different approach. And why is the demo always looking better if that's supposed to be a demo or beta or whatever you prefer it to be?

Jesus on a pogo stick...... are you joking?

 

Ok...

 

I will bet my house that R* has versions of this game on the hardrives that would blow your lid, but for a game to be stable a bit of balancing needs to happen between content and frame rates/stability.

 

There building a game, and while they are building it they show you that progression in screens and the odd vid, if you want a world where they show you nothing unless its 100% no if's of but's going to make the final game then expect no info on a game pre release, its that simple...

 

Now a demo is small part of a game that has been deemed stable enough to play as a demo to give you an idea of gameplay, my point being is those early screens we saw were from a very unstable build of the game and it wouldn't surprise me if seconds after the screen was taken the engine crashed a top spec pc.....

 

I would love to read R*'s brainstorming notes, ya know? what they wanted to go into the game right at the beginning of development, but whats possible come the end of development is a completely different story....

 

Theeeeeeen you have to factor in........ yep the publisher...

 

People really dont understand the constraints the pub has on a title, and ill tell you one thing for free right here... its the pubs that are responsible for destroying 90% of titles out there today, they are money men..... not gamers and not very creative people and devs are under very heavy pressure from them.

 

R* had a biiiiig meeting that day when they got the game delayed, while R* are saying.... "we need more time to get this right" the pub is shaking his head saying " noooooooooo noooooooooo no no no, we need this on the shelves now, we want our money"

 

Go as far as saying that R* asked for double the time they got.... minimum....

 

A great example of this was mafia 2..

 

The pubs demanded the game had a number of features and went a given direction, the guy behind the original left due to these demands and the game was never what it could have been...

 

Games are pushed out to early all the time due to pub demands thats beside dev demands.....

 

This is why a lot of game company's now are going solo so they can do exactly what they want with now other quarter poking their noses in on things have no idea about..

[theworldfamous]

 

 

 

Loving the mountains... Blaine County overall.

 

I still wonder why people get mad over sh*t like this... as if Rockstar personally made a promise to you to include this or that pet-feature and then took it away from you.

 

You did not design this game, and there's probably a good reason for it (being: A you can't design games for sh*t, B you are not Rockstar and C you do not have 120 million to drop on 'a project')

They actually spent 256 millions on this game

 

really? hmm.. so I was being kind then.

 

Here is the thing, this is the second most expensive entertaining product in the world ( after the movie The Pirates of the Caribbean ) and for that money I think it should deliver a bit more in terms of aspect and a lot more in terms of gameplay. I don't find this game more impressive that AC4 or Watch Dogs for example which didn't have that colossal budget

 

 

Ok.. not arguing your opinion, but to me it (art/entertainment) just doesn't work like that and budget is entirely irrelevant. It's just not a 'bang for the buck' type proposition like that.

 

The game is not obliged to 'deliver' anything and you don't get to be angry if it doesn't. It is what it is and up to you to find it worthwhile or not. I'm suprised that is normal with a movie, book or just about anything, but with games there's this sense of entitlement that's just crazy.

[tommzy2]

they could have at least put in 2 other towns roughly the size of paleto bay like somewhere between zancudo and los santos and also a town near palomino highlands

[Wylight]

 

I don't think we're asking for the world, just a different approach. And why is the demo always looking better if that's supposed to be a demo or beta or whatever you prefer it to be?

Jesus on a pogo stick...... are you joking?

 

Ok...

 

I will bet my house that R* has versions of this game on the hardrives that would blow your lid, but for a game to be stable a bit of balancing needs to happen between content and frame rates/stability.

 

There building a game, and while they are building it they show you that progression in screens and the odd vid, if you want a world where they show you nothing unless its 100% no if's of but's going to make the final game then expect no info on a game pre release, its that simple...

 

Now a demo is small part of a game that has been deemed stable enough to play as a demo to give you an idea of gameplay, my point being is those early screens we saw were from a very unstable build of the game and it wouldn't surprise me if seconds after the screen was taken the engine crashed a top spec pc.....

 

I would love to read R*'s brainstorming notes, ya know? what they wanted to go into the game right at the beginning of development, but whats possible come the end of development is a completely different story....

 

Theeeeeeen you have to factor in........ yep the publisher...

 

People really dont understand the constraints the pub has on a title, and ill tell you one thing for free right here... its the pubs that are responsible for destroying 90% of titles out there today, they are money men..... not gamers and not very creative people and devs are under very heavy pressure from them.

 

R* had a biiiiig meeting that day when they got the game delayed, while R* are saying.... "we need more time to get this right" the pub is shaking his head saying " noooooooooo noooooooooo no no no, we need this on the shelves now, we want our money"

 

Go as far as saying that R* asked for double the time they got.... minimum....

 

A great example of this was mafia 2..

 

The pubs demanded the game had a number of features and went a given direction, the guy behind the original left due to these demands and the game was never what it could have been...

 

Games are pushed out to early all the time due to pub demands thats beside dev demands.....

 

This is why a lot of game company's now are going solo so they can do exactly what they want with now other quarter poking their noses in on things have no idea about..

 

Well I have to agree with you cause you have a good point but isn't R* the publisher itself??? You know, developed by R* North, published by R* Games and distributed by Take-Two Interactive... Anyway I do know that developers are the only ones who know what are they doing cause the ''big bosses'' only care about their profit.

[gizz01]

 

 

 

Loving the mountains... Blaine County overall.

 

I still wonder why people get mad over sh*t like this... as if Rockstar personally made a promise to you to include this or that pet-feature and then took it away from you.

 

You did not design this game, and there's probably a good reason for it (being: A you can't design games for sh*t, B you are not Rockstar and C you do not have 120 million to drop on 'a project')

 

They actually spent 256 millions on this game

 

really? hmm.. so I was being kind then.

 

Here is the thing, this is the second most expensive entertaining product in the world ( after the movie The Pirates of the Caribbean ) and for that money I think it should deliver a bit more in terms of aspect and a lot more in terms of gameplay. I don't find this game more impressive that AC4 or Watch Dogs for example which didn't have that colossal budget

Thats a valid comment, but do you really think that your playing ALL of that 256 mil? Of corse not....

 

I really dont think some people understand what's happening here, this is not just a new gta, its a complete new model...

 

Gta online will be a LOT bigger than most of you think, its the new direction of the series, im not saying the story sp no longer matters, but online play is now where its happening and where the money is also.

 

you can tell with some of the online features like the bad sport thing and making freeroam more a world rather than just a map with 16 players on it kicking f*ck out of each other...

 

Gta has just started its journey into rpg, and what better time to do it just before next gen..

 

This means consoles will, be able to handle more connections allowing larger online games and the beef to run far far more complex game engines, trust me that game you brought a few weeks ago is the the tip of the iceberg in terms of that 256 mil...

 

There was post not long ago "confirmed R* working on gta 6"

 

LoL damn right they are they have been working on it for ages, this is a ongoing thing what you see now, personly I carrrrrrrrrnt wait to see what gta online will become, exciting times me thinks....